A GROUNDED THEORY STUDY EXPLORING THE TECHNOLOGY DECISIONS
MOTHERS MAKE FOR THEIR PRESCHOOL AGE CHILDREN IN
THE HOME ENVIRONMENT
by
Carolyn J. Wicks
Liberty University
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
Liberty University
July, 2015
2
A GROUNDED THEORY STUDY EXPLORING THE TECHNOLOGY DECISIONS
MOTHERS MAKE FOR THEIR PRESCHOOL AGE CHILDREN IN
THE HOME ENVIRONMENT
by Carolyn J. Wicks
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA
July, 2015
APPROVED BY:
Lucinda S. Spaulding, Ph.D., Committee Chair
Amanda J. Rockinson-Szapkiw, Ed.D., Committee Member
Geoff A. Holloway, Ph.D., Committee Member
Scott Watson, Ph.D., Associate Dean, Advanced Programs
3
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this systematic grounded theory study was to explore the technology decision
process mothers use when making technology decisions for their preschool age (3-5 years)
children in the home environment. I used snowball and maximum variation sampling procedures
to purposefully select 18 mothers of preschool age children living in urban, suburban, and rural
areas located in and around a college town in central Virginia. Data gathered from
questionnaires, participant interviews, and focus groups were analyzed and findings revealed
mothers’ technology decisions are a multi-dimensional process whereby they situationally reflect
to form technology preferences which promote intentionality and individuality in the technology
decisions they make for themselves and their children. The results of this study addressed the
research gap regarding mothers’ technology decisions for their children by connecting and
broadening theoretical understanding of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of
Technology (UTAUT) model (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003) and the ProcessPerson-Context-Time (PPCT) model (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998) through three new
constructs: reflecting situationally, promoting intentionality, and valuing individuality.
Keywords: mothers, preschool children, technology, technology decisions
4
Acknowledgement
I thank my Savior Jesus Christ for giving me another opportunity to learn and research in
my teaching ministry. I thank God for my husband James who loves and supports me in each
happy journey God maps out before us.
I thank Liberty University for giving graduates like me from unaccredited institutions a
chance to show themselves “a workman that needeth not to be ashamed” (2 Tim 2:25 KJV).
Liberty took a risk and invested in my chance to put my credentialing to rights by earning a
second doctorate. I thank the School of Education for giving me the opportunity to teach while
giving me a path to work toward state teaching licensure while finishing doctoral work.
I thank my committee for their commitment to my research journey. You were God’s
hand of blessing in my life. I thank God for each of you.
I thank God for my family. My mother and father taught me that each new day is a
chance to honor your Savior with a joyful spirit. No matter the life challenge you smile, care for
others, work hard, own your choices, and move forward.
Through God’s kind grace, I moved forward.
5
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................... 3
Acknowledgement ...................................................................................................................... 4
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. 9
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... 10
List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ 11
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 12
Overview ................................................................................................................................... 12
Background ............................................................................................................................... 15
The UTAUT Model: Origins in Technology Acceptance .................................................... 15
The UTAUT Model: Explaining Technology Intention and Use ......................................... 17
The PPCT Model: Origins in Ecological Theory ................................................................. 22
The PPCT Model: Proximal Processes in Bioecological Theory ......................................... 24
Situation to Self......................................................................................................................... 36
Problem Statement .................................................................................................................... 37
Purpose Statement ..................................................................................................................... 38
Significance of the Study .......................................................................................................... 39
Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 41
Research Plan ............................................................................................................................ 43
Delimitations ............................................................................................................................. 44
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 45
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................. 46
Overview ................................................................................................................................... 46
Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................. 47
Individual Factors of Behavior and Technology Use: Origins of the UTAUT Model. ........ 48
Individual Factors of Technology Intention and Use: The UTAUT Model. ........................ 51
Individual, Social, and Environmental Factors in the PPCT Model ..................................... 54
Related Literature...................................................................................................................... 68
Technology Preference: The MTP Model ............................................................................ 69
Technology Integration: The TPACK Model ....................................................................... 71
Technology Influences Outside the Home ............................................................................ 72
6
Technology Decisions Inside the Home ............................................................................... 76
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 83
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ................................................................................................ 85
Overview ................................................................................................................................... 85
Design ....................................................................................................................................... 85
Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 87
Setting ....................................................................................................................................... 87
Participants ................................................................................................................................ 88
Procedures ................................................................................................................................. 90
Researcher's Role ...................................................................................................................... 92
Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 94
Questionnaire ........................................................................................................................ 94
Interviews .............................................................................................................................. 95
Focus Groups ........................................................................................................................ 98
Data Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 100
Trustworthiness ....................................................................................................................... 103
Credibility and Dependability ............................................................................................. 103
Transferability ..................................................................................................................... 104
Confirmability ..................................................................................................................... 104
Ethical Considerations ............................................................................................................ 104
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS ................................................................................................. 105
Overview ................................................................................................................................. 105
Participants .............................................................................................................................. 105
Amanda ............................................................................................................................... 106
Anita.................................................................................................................................... 107
Aryn .................................................................................................................................... 108
Becca ................................................................................................................................... 109
Cala ..................................................................................................................................... 110
Ella ...................................................................................................................................... 111
Fiona ................................................................................................................................... 111
Kameya ............................................................................................................................... 113
7
Kamile ................................................................................................................................. 114
Katherine ............................................................................................................................. 115
Kora..................................................................................................................................... 116
Lainey ................................................................................................................................. 116
Leticia ................................................................................................................................. 117
Lexie ................................................................................................................................... 118
Maya ................................................................................................................................... 119
Rilee .................................................................................................................................... 120
Shay..................................................................................................................................... 121
Sibel .................................................................................................................................... 122
Results ..................................................................................................................................... 123
Reflecting Situationally ...................................................................................................... 127
Promoting Intentionality ..................................................................................................... 138
Valuing Individuality .......................................................................................................... 154
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 162
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION.............................................................................................. 163
Overview ................................................................................................................................. 163
Summary of Findings .............................................................................................................. 164
Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 165
Reflecting Situationally ...................................................................................................... 165
Promoting Intentionality ..................................................................................................... 168
Valuing Individuality .......................................................................................................... 172
Implications............................................................................................................................. 174
Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 177
Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................................. 180
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 181
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 182
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 233
Appendix A: Institutional Review Board Approval ................................................................... 234
Appendix B: Colleague Email Script.......................................................................................... 235
Appendix C: Participant Email Script ........................................................................................ 236
8
Appendix D: Consent Form ........................................................................................................ 237
Appendix E: Questionnaire ......................................................................................................... 239
Appendix F: Transcript Sample .................................................................................................. 241
Appendix G: Theoretical Memo Sample .................................................................................... 248
Appendix H: Open Coding Sample ............................................................................................ 249
Appendix I: Axial Coding Table ................................................................................................ 262
9
List of Tables
Table 1—Participant Characteristics .................................................................... 89
Table 2—Standardized Open-Ended Individual Interview Questions.................. 96
Table 3—Standardized Open-Ended Focus Group Questions.............................. 99
10
List of Figures
Figure 1—Theoretical Model for Mothers’ Technology Decisions ................... 124
11
List of Abbreviations
Control Comfort Access (CCA)............................................................................ 36
Information Communication Technology (ICT) .................................................. 12
Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT) ..................................................................... 16
Model Combining the Technology Acceptance Model and Theory of
Planned Behavior (C-TAM-TPB) ................................................................... 16
Model of PC Utilization (MPCU) ........................................................................ 16
Model of Technology Preference (MTP) ............................................................. 21
Mother of Preschoolers (MOPS) ......................................................................... 23
Motivational Model (MM).................................................................................... 15
Process-Person-Context-Time (PPCT) model ........................................................ 3
Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) ........................................................................... 16
Socioeconomic status (SES) ................................................................................. 74
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework ............... 14
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) ................................................................ 13
Technology Acceptance Model 2 (TAM2) ........................................................... 17
Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) ...................................................................... 13
Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)....................................................................... 13
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) ........................ 3
12
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Overview
The technology decisions parents make influence their child’s well-being (Wonsun, Jisu,
& Faber, 2012; Swindle, Ward, Whiteside-Mansell, Bokony, & Pettit, 2014) and development
(Plowman, Stevenson, McPake, Stephen, & Adey, 2011; Tu, Chou, & Lee, 2013). Parents
promote their child’s digital well-being by mediating their child’s technology use and online
experiences (Wonsun et al., 2012). Parents also use online experiences to maintain their parental
well-being through social support and to stay informed on the best ways to care for their child
(Swindle et al., 2014). As their child develops, parents use technology to support their child’s
learning (Plowman et al., 2011) and character development (Tu et al., 2013).
Many mothers have a unique role as the primary caregiver (Brown, McBride, Bost, &
Shin, 2011; Song, Spier, & Tamis-Lemonda, 2014; Tottenham, Shapiro, Telzer, & Humphreys,
2012) and decision maker (Jang, Dworkin, & Hessel, 2015) for their children. As a caregiver,
mothers have distinctive involvement patterns with their children (Brown et al., 2011) that can
support their child’s development (Song et al., 2014). Conducting this study exploring the
technology decisions mothers make for their preschool age children was important to understand
American mothers’ technology decision-making process to inform their decision-making and
ultimately promote the well-being and development of their children (Bronfenbrenner 1994,
1995b, 2000, 2001; Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000;
Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006).
In American culture, technology can be broadly defined as industrial (Landes, 1969),
electronic innovation (Forbes, 1958; Susskind, 1975), or information communication technology
(ICT). This study uses the term ICT to signify emergent or established (Halaweh, 2013) data,
13
voice, or video (Melody, 1986; Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts, 2010) ICT. The technology decisions
mothers make for themselves and their children about ICT devices, services, or applications were
explored in this study.
What a mother perceives and believes about ICT is influenced by social contexts where
she receives social messages about her personal technology use as well as parenting messages
(Carter, 2007; Daneback & Plantin, 2008; Williams & Page, 2011) about how she should guide
her child’s technology use (Ackers, 2012; Davies, 2011; Johanson, 2010; Lebens, Graff, &
Mayer, 2009; Le Heuzey, 2012; Plowman, Stephen, & McPake, 2010; Shaikh, Shaikh, & Asar,
2012). The Process-Person-Context-Time (PPCT) model (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998) of
Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993, 1994) explores social
context and explains how human development occurs through social interactions within
environmental systems. The PPCT model has been applied to technology (Johnson, 2010;
Johnson, & Puplampu, 2008), but it does not explain the process by which individuals accept and
use technology.
There are behavioral theories and technology models that explain how individuals accept
and use technology. The theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein &
Ajzen, 1975) and the theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen 1985, 1991) suggest an
individual’s attitude and perception of subjective norms (what others think about the individual
performing the behavior; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, p. 302) influence their intentionality and
behavior (Ajzen, 1991, p. 181). The technology acceptance model (TAM) (Davis, 1986, 1989)
connects elements of TRA to technology by explaining perceived usefulness and ease of use as
primary factors that influence an individual’s intention to use or how and when he or she uses
technology (Davis, 1989). TAM is one of eight theories/models used to develop the Unified
14
Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, &
Davis, 2003). UTAUT explains the factors that determine and moderate an individual’s
technology intention and use and newer research (Jaafar, Darmawan, & Ariffin, 2014;
Muthitcharoen, Palvia, & Grover, 2011) describes how individuals form technology preferences;
but, like the UTAUT model, this research does not explain the process by which an individual
uses personal technology preferences to inform and make technology decisions for another. The
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006)
explains how teachers make technology decisions in the classroom for themselves and for
students, but the classroom environment and pedagogical considerations of this framework do
not provide insight into mothers’ technology decisions for their preschool age child in the home
environment.
The purpose of this systematic grounded theory study was to explore the technology
decision process mothers use when making technology decisions for their preschool age children
in the home environment. The UTAUT and PPCT models provided the best conceptual
framework to explore mothers’ technology decisions. Valuable connections between these
models were unexplored before this study explained the process of mothers’ technology
decisions by identifying how mothers form personal technology preferences, how mothers’
preferences inform their intention to use technology and make technology decisions for their
children, and how mothers ascribe meaning to their children’s technology use.
This chapter provides a brief overview of the research context, the research gap that
necessitated the study, and the research purpose and questions that informed the research plan.
Chapter Two explains the conceptual framework and related literature concerning the
technology influences on mothers from social culture, school environments, and within the
15
family setting. Chapter Three describes the research design and study procedures. Chapter Four
introduces the study participants and provides a data narrative of the study findings represented
in the theoretical model. Chapter Five discusses study findings and concludes with study
implications, limitations, and recommendations for future research.
Background
The conceptual framework that guided this study of a mother’s technology-related
thinking and behavior expressed in her technology decisions for her preschool age child is the
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model (Venkatesh et al., 2003)
and the Process-Person-Context-Time (PPCT) model (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998) of
Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993, 1994). These models
connect in their description of human and object interactions and environmental factors. This
background section provides a brief overview of each model’s origins, definitions, key concepts
and relationships to mothers. In Chapter Two each model is explained in detail with related
literature. Understanding how both of these models describe systems of influence that shape a
mother’s technology intention and decision-making for herself and for her child begins with a
description of the origins and constructs of the UTAUT model.
The UTAUT Model: Origins in Technology Acceptance
Several factors guide how and why individuals use technology. The Unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model (Venkatesh et al., 2003) explains the
factors that determine and moderate an individual’s technology intention and use by synthesizing
eight previous theories/models—Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980;
Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), Technology Acceptance Model (TAM; Davis, 1986, 1989),
Motivational Model (MM; Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1992), Theory of Planned Behavior
16
(TPB; Ajzen 1985, 1991), Model Combining the Technology Acceptance Model and Theory of
Planned Behavior (C-TAM-TPB; Taylor & Todd, 1995), Model of PC Utilization (MPCU;
Thompson, Higgins, & Howell, 1991), Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT; Rogers, 1983), and
Social Cognitive Theory (SCT; Bandura, 1986)—that had been used to explain how individuals
use information systems. Of these eight theories/models, the extension of TAM to the UTAUT
model is the most relevant to this study.
TAM (Davis, 1986, 1989) theorizes that an individual’s technology intention and use is
determined by two beliefs: perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Perceived usefulness
describes an individual’s technology perception that “using a particular system would enhance
his or her job performance” (Davis, 1989, p. 320). Perceived ease of use denotes an individual’s
perception that certain technology devices, services, or applications are easy to use. Perceived
ease of use is a direct determinant of perceived usefulness (the stronger predictor of technology
intention; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000).
TAM conceptualizes how perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use mediate the
influence of external variables (e.g., how a technology system was designed, program training)
that affect an individual’s intention to use technology (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000, p.187). TAM
“consistently explains a substantial proportion of the variance (typically about 40%) in usage
intention and behavior” (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000, p.186) and has been used in a variety of
research concerning technology acceptance and users’ online community participation (Zhou,
2011), perception of online social networks (Li, 2011), acceptance of social shopping websites
(Shen, 2012), consumers’ emotional attachments (Read, Robertson, & McQuilken, 2011;
Thomson, MacInnis, & Park, 2005), as well as marketing tech products based on consumer age
and need (Bruner & Kumar, 2005). To further conceptualize technology intention and use, two
17
key studies modified (UTAUT model; Venkatesh et al., 2003) and extended (TAM2; Venkatesh
& Davis, 2000) TAM.
The Technology Acceptance Model 2 (TAM2; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) explains
perceived usefulness and usage intentions through cognitive instrumental processes (job
relevance, output quality, result demonstrability, and perceived ease of use) and social influence
processes (subjective norm, image, and voluntariness). Subjective norm, which is a “person's
perception that most people who are important to him think he should or should not perform the
behavior in question” (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, p. 302)—can have a direct effect on technology
intention in mandatory contexts. When the context is voluntary, subjective norm has an indirect
influence on technology intention (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000).
Social influence processes and cognitive instrumental processes are significant in an
individual’s technology intention (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). In the four longitudinal field
studies connected to the development of TAM2 , measurements of social and cognitive processes
accounted “for 40%–60% of the variance in usefulness perceptions and 34%–52% of the
variance in usage intentions” (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000, p. 186). TAM2 has been used in current
research concerning social influences on e-commerce (Belkhamza & Wafa, 2013; Guzzo, Ferri,
& Grifoni, 2015), shopping with mobile devices (Ferri et al., 2014), and the role of feedback in
online social interactions (Ehsaei & Che Hussin, 2012). Further research (Venkatesh et al., 2003)
into technology intention and use prompted TAM and TAM 2 to be extended into the UTAUT
model.
The UTAUT Model: Explaining Technology Intention and Use
The UTAUT model describes the factors that determine and moderate an individual’s
technology intention and use (Venkatesh et al., 2003). UTAUT conceptualizes seven constructs
18
(performance expectancy, effort expectancy, attitude toward using technology, social influence,
facilitating conditions, self-efficacy, and anxiety) that explain an individual’s intention to use and
subsequent use of technology (hereafter referred to as intention and use). Of these seven
constructs, four are direct determinants of technology intention and/or use and are the most
relevant to this study of mothers’ technology decisions.
Determinants of technology intention and use. UTAUT describes four direct
determinants of technology intention and/or use: performance expectancy, effort expectancy,
social influence, and facilitating conditions. Related to the perceived usefulness construct in
TAM and TAM 2, UTAUT’s (Venkatesh et al., 2003) construct performance expectancy is
defined as an individual’s perception that technology will improve his or her performance of a
task (p. 447). Performance expectancy is the strongest predictor of user intention (Venkatesh et
al., 2003).
Connecting to the perceived ease of use construct in TAM and TAM 2, UTAUT’s
construct effort expectancy describes “the degree of ease” (Venkatesh et al., 2003, p. 450) an
individual associates with technology. Research indicates older individuals (Morris & Venkatesh
2000; Yu, 2012) and women (Bozionelos, 1996; Venkatesh & Morris, 2000; Venkatesh & Zhang
2010) are more influenced by effort expectancy in their technology intention. This study of
mothers’ technology decisions was important to understand how effort expectancy influenced the
technology decisions of older and younger mothers.
Social influence is derived from descriptions of subjective norm in TRA (Ajzen &
Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) and addresses
the importance placed in others’ (who are important to the individual) beliefs about an
individual’s technology use (Venkatesh et al., 2003, p. 451). Research indicates women are more
19
aware of social perception than men when using new technology (Musleh, Marthandan, & Aziz,
2015; Venkatesh, Morris, & Ackerman, 2000) that can diminish with greater device or software
experience (Venkatesh & Morris, 2000). The social influence determinant was especially useful
in this study for understanding how a mother’s technology decisions for herself and for her
preschool child helped her maintain or reject others’ beliefs about her technology use and that of
her child.
Facilitating conditions examines user perception that support mechanisms will help and
guide their technology use (Venkatesh et al., 2003, p. 453). Research of facilitating conditions
indicates that technology convenience and accessibility improves an individual’s technology
experience and proficiency thereby increasing an individual’s willingness to adopt technology
(Joshua & Koshy, 2011). Parents function as a system of technology support that can improve
their children’s proficiency in online learning experiences (Eynon & Malmberg, 2011). This
study of mothers’ technology decisions explored mothers’ perceptions of technology support
regarding what devices she bought, how she used devices, and other technology decisions that
affected her technology use and facilitation of her preschool age child’s technology use.
Moderators of effect. The UTAUT model identifies variables such as age, gender,
experience, and voluntariness of use (technology use in mandatory or voluntary contexts) that
moderate the effect of determinant factors on an individual’s intention and use of technology.
The moderators affect the determinants of use although not all determinants are mediated by
each moderator. As an example in the case of women, age and experience are significant
moderators of effort expectancy and intention to use technology (Morris & Venkatesh 2000);
however, age, experience, and voluntariness of use are significant moderators of social influence
and intention to use technology (Venkatesh et al., 2003). This study of mothers’ technology
20
decisions explored differences in age and technology experience that informed a mother’s
technology intention and use for herself and for her preschool age child.
UTAUT is a comprehensive, empirically validated technology acceptance model with a
predictive validity for technology intention greater than 70% (Oye, A.Iahad, & A.b.Rahim, 2014,
p. 256) and technology use around 50% (Venkatesh, Thong, & Xu, 2012, p. 157). The UTAUT
model has been applied in many contexts (Im, Hong, & Kang, 2011; Williams, Rana, &
Dwivedi, 2015): technology acceptance in education (Attuquayefio & Addo, 2014; Wong, Teo,
& Russo, 2013), e-learning and management (Lin & Anol, 2008; Raman, Don, Khalid, &
Rizuan, 2014), e-commerce (Esteva-Armida & Rubio-Sanchez, 2012) e-banking (Al-Qeisi,
Dennis, Hegazy, & Abbad, 2015) and e-government (Williams et al., 2015). However, the
UTAUT model had not been applied to understanding how a mother develops personal
technology preferences that influence her intention to use technology and the technology
decisions she makes for herself and for her preschool age child.
Recognizing the contribution of UTAUT and the wealth of research on technology
intention and use, Venkatesh (2006) encouraged future research into the “how or why” (p. 508)
of an individual’s technology choice. To that end UTAUT has been expanded and applied to a
consumer context (UTAUT2; Venkatesh et al., 2012) exploring three additional choice
constructs: hedonic motivation, price value, and habit (p. 157). Limited validation of this new
extension of UTAUT made it unsuitable as a conceptual foundation for this study of a mother’s
technology preferences and technology decision-making for herself and for her preschool age
child.
Research has explored technology preference as an antecedent to technology intention
and use (Jaafar et al., 2014; Muthitcharoen et al., 2011). Technology preference can be defined
21
as an individual’s explicit or implicit comparison (Muthitcharoen et al., 2011) and choice “of one
thing before or above another thing because of a notion of betterness” (Brown, 1984, p. 323).
The Model of Technology Preference (MTP; Muthitcharoen et al., 2011) identified the effect of
attribute-based preference on attitude-based preference. Pairing TAM and preferential decision
knowledge related to product marketing, MTP describes attribute-based preference as an
individual’s detailed comparison of “specific attributes of alternatives” (Muthitcharoen et al.,
2011, p. 209) to form a technology preference. Attitude-based preference describes how
“individuals employ their general feelings to develop their preference” (Muthitcharoen et al.,
2011, p. 209) about a specific form of technology. Scant research validating this new model
made it unfit as a theoretical foundation for this study. However, the recognition that technology
preferences is an under-researched component of technology intention (Jaafar et al., 2014;
Muthitcharoen et al., 2011) and that variables related to an individual’s technology choice is a
needed expansion of UTAUT (Venkatesh, 2006) made this study of mothers’ technology
decisions important.
Recognizing UTAUT’s assertion that an individual’s technology intention and use will
“evolve over time” (Venkatesh et al., 2003, p. 468), this study explored the factors that determine
and moderate a mother’s technology decisions for her child within the lifespan developmental
processes identified in the Process-Person-Context-Time (PPCT) model (Bronfenbrenner &
Morris, 1998) of bioecological theory (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993, 1994). Based on the
relevance of using the UTAUT model and the PPCT model for this study, the next section
provides description of the PPCT model and its origins in ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner,
1979).
22
The PPCT Model: Origins in Ecological Theory
The PPCT model represents the fullest and final expression of Urie Bronfenbrenners’s
(1917–2005) research on how an individual’s development is influenced by different social
contexts and interactions with others. The process, person, context, and time elements of the
PPCT model (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006) cannot be fully understood apart from
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) development of ecological theory and transition to bioecological theory
(Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993, 1994). Bronfenbrenner (1989) engaged in continuous theory
development and self-reflection, making it necessary to identify origins and changes to key
concepts that affect authentic use (Tudge, Mokrova, Hatfield, & Karnik, 2009) of the PPCT
model as a conceptual framework for this study of mothers’ technology decisions for their
preschool age children in the home environment.
Pursuing a theory of human development that could inform research-based public
policies benefitting families and children (Bronfenbrenner 1973, 1974, 1975, 1979),
Bronfenbrenner challenged previous research practices and chose to study the social interactions
of individuals in natural and familiar environments (1973, 1977, 1979) rather than a lab
environment (1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1979). The first phase (1973-1979; Rosa & Tudge,
2013) of this research culminated in Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological theory that described
human development as ecology or the interrelated system of mutual “adjustment” (1975, p. 439)
and “accommodation” (1979, p. 21) between the developing individual (1976, 1979) and
changing environmental contexts (1975, 1979). To explain the influence of remote and intimate
settings on the developing individual, Bronfenbrenner (1976, 1977, 1978, 1979) conceptualized
four interconnected ecological system structures (macrosystem, exosystem, mesosystem, and
microsystem). He did not visually display these ecological systems which allowed for non-
23
standard interpretation of his enclosed interconnected structures (Bronfenbrenner, 1976, 1977,
1978, 1979) and non-standard conceptualization of the model as a circle within other circles.
The microsystem is the innermost structural layer or circle of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979)
ecological model. It is the most intimate and proximate system (Bronfenbrenner, 1974, 1977,
1979) denoting direct personal interactions with a spouse, immediate family, or close friends
(Bronfenbrenner, 1977). When a mother interacts in multiple associative microsystems or a
“system of microsystems” (Bronfenbrenner, 1976, p. 163) the interrelatedness of these
interactions across settings (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) form a mesosystem.
The mesosystem structural layer or circle of the ecological model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979)
describes an immediate (but not an intimate) development setting situated between exosystem
and microsystem influences. Mesosystem influences could be a church, community group, or
distant extended family (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1979). When a mother attends a weekly Mother
of Preschoolers (MOPS) meeting she is interacting in a mesosystem. Some of the ideas discussed
at that meeting may reflect influences from an exosystem.
The exosystem structural layer or circle of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model
describes a system of external development settings and influences such as the workplace or a
neighborhood in which an individual indirectly interacts. When a mother considers moving to a
neighborhood for the schooling and social opportunities it can provide her child, she is reacting
to exosystem influences. Her choice may also reflect philosophical macrosystem influences.
The macrosystem can be conceptualized as the outermost structural layer or circle of
Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model. This broad system describes social or cultural
ideologies and beliefs that affect an individual (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). When a mother thanks a
24
veteran for his or her military service she is recognizing and responding to macrosystem
messages about patriotism.
The four interconnected ecological system structures of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979)
ecological model were refined and later transferred to bioecological theory (Bronfenbrenner &
Ceci, 1993, 1994) and the context element of the PPCT model (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998,
2006). As Bronfenbrenner (1988, 1989, 1999) continued to study the ecology of human
development he revealed, “I have been pursuing a hidden agenda: that of re-assessing, revising,
and extending—as well as regretting and even renouncing – some of the conceptions set forth in
my 1979 monograph” (Bronfenbrenner, 1989, p. 187). One important extension included the
addition of a chronosystem (from 1986 to 2006; Rosa & Tudge, 2013) to the four interconnected
ecological system structures to account for the changes to an individual’s development through
various experiences over time (Bronfenbrenner, 1988. 1989). This addition and continuous
revision to ecological theory led Bronfenbrenner (1988, 1989, 1999) to reimagine the “engines”
(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, p. 118) of human development represented in bioecological
theory (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993, 1994) and the PPCT model.
The PPCT Model: Proximal Processes in Bioecological Theory
Continuous study of developmental interactions matured Bronfenbrenner’s (1979)
ecological theory to bioecological theory (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993, 1994), which redirected
the study of human development from examining environment and human response to a study of
proximal processes or “enduring forms” of reciprocal human interaction in an “immediate
environment” (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, p. 996). Bronfenbrenner and Ceci (1994)
explained how “human development takes place through processes of progressively more
complex reciprocal interaction between an active, evolving biopsychological human organism
25
and the persons, objects, and symbols in its immediate environment” (p. 572). Thus,
bioecological theory (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993, 1994) explores the proximal processes that
drive “human development over time” (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006, p. 793) by investigating
the simultaneous influences of process, person, context, and time elements represented in the
PPCT model (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006). This study used elements of the PPCT
model to explore how a mother’s technology decisions reflect her increasingly complex lifelong
interactions with others and technology in a variety of contexts, but specifically the home
environment. It investigated the proximal processes that helped a mother understand herself and
her technology, her world and its technology use, and the developmental influences of her
technology decisions for herself and for her child in the home environment.
Process and person characteristics. Proximal processes are foundational to
bioecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1999; Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000; Bronfenbrenner &
Morris, 1998, 2006); thus, the first element of the PPCT model (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998,
2006), process, identifies proximal processes as the primary mechanism of human development
(Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000, p. 118). Bronfenbrenner and Ceci (1993) explained proximal
processes through two central propositions; the first argues that an individual exerts power over
his or her own development over the course of their lifetime by choosing to interact with others
with regularity and increasing complexity in a variety of social contexts. Thus, this study
explored how mothers exercised power over their own development and that of their children
through their social interactions and technology decisions in the home.
The second proposition (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993) contends that proximal processes
influence human development positively or negatively based on the frequency of interactions
over an extended length of time, the developing person characteristics of each individual, and the
26
contexts of the interactions. These considerations inform the second element of the PPCT model,
person, which explores the uniqueness of an individual by identifying force, demand, and
resource characteristics that enhance or limit an individual’s engagement in proximal processes
(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006). A mother’s engagement in proximal process
interactions with her developing preschool age child made the person and process elements of
the PPCT model of particular relevance to this study because the model contextualized her
person characteristics with that of her developing child while describing the reciprocal
interactions of relationship that influenced both her development and that of her child’s through
the technology decisions she makes for herself and for her child.
Context characteristics. The third element of the PPCT model (Bronfenbrenner &
Morris, 1998, 2006) is context which uses the four interconnected system structures
(macrosystem, exosystem, mesosystem, and microsystem) first described in Bronfenbrenner’s
(1976, 1977, 1978, 1979) ecological theory to explain the influences of distal and proximate
environments on the proximal processes of an individual. Describing bioecological theory
(Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993, 1994) through the context element of the PPCT model,
Bronfenbrenner and Morris (1998, 2006) placed increased emphasis on proximal processes in the
microsystem. The influence of other system structures was secondary (Bronfenbrenner & Morris,
1998, 2006) to the influence of proximal processes in the microsystem. Interestingly, the
macrosystem that received considerable research description (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1989, 1993)
during the transition from ecological to bioecological theory received only limited attention
(Bronfenbrenner, 1994) thereafter.
Macrosystem influences. Had Bronfenbrenner (1917–2005) lived to see the extent of the
global technology revolution he might have added more emphasis to the macrosystem part of the
27
ecological system in the context element of the PPCT model (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998).
Bronfenbrenner and Morris (2006) did note requisites for proximal interactions to occur between
humans and objects: “the objects and symbols in the immediate environment must be of a kind
that invites attention, exploration, manipulation, elaboration, and imagination” (p. 798).
Technology fits this proximal process requisite, allowing it to be part of the macrosystem
messages transmitted to individuals. Exploring how mothers perceive macrosystem messages
about their technology use and the technology decisions they make for their preschool age child
contributes to what is known about the success or failure of some national macrosystems to
promote technology and beliefs that would maintain various cultural statuses.
Nations use technology to preserve national identity (Johanson, 2010) and strengthen
national economic interests (Brynjolfsson & Saunders, 2010; Dimelis & Papaioannou, 2011;
Lebens et al., 2009; Leviäkangas, Schneitz, & Aapaoja, 2015). European nations such as Finland
recognize,
there is a growing demand for digital learning services and applications. Due to this
underlying societal and technological change education must be regarded as an
ecosystem, where the different interacting organizations and individuals co-create
applications and services . . . to support students’ growth and learning according to their
needs—as well as according to identified societal future needs. (Leviäkangas et al., 2015,
p. 508)
In support of these goals, education in the home is of growing interest to national governments
that encourage parents to assist children’s assimilation of national identity using technology
(Johanson, 2010). These social pressures placed on parents to align with cultural technology
norms (Lebens et al., 2009; Plowman et al., 2010) make parents assume a dual role as provider
28
and regulator of technology (Davies, 2011; Shaikh et al., 2012). Exploring how mothers perceive
these macrosystem messages to provide and regulate technology is important in understanding
how a mother’s response to cultural technology norms influences her child’s development.
Cultural technology norms extend beyond the macrosystem to the exosystem.
Exosystem influences. Mothers indirectly interact with technology-related exosystem
influences from education systems (Korat, 2010; Li, Pow, Wong, & Fung, 2010; Moody, Justice,
& Cabell, 2010). While some interpretations of Bronfenbrenner’s (1977, 1979) description of the
exosystem place all aspects of school in the mesosystem, this study (which was limited to
mothers with an oldest child who did not attend a formal preschool) recognized modern
interpretations of Bronfenbrenner’s intent that the influence of this system is indirect (Rosa &
Tudge, 2013, p. 247), making national schooling trends and national teacher practices part of the
exosystem. National schooling trends promote technology use in three respects: to promote
learning (Li et al., 2010); to promote device use such as tablet computers (Couse & Chen, 2010;
Li et al., 2010) and laptops (Schnellert & Keengwe, 2012), as well as app use, such as e-books
(Jones & Brown, 2011; Ko, Chiang, Lin, & Chen, 2011; Korat, 2010; Wright, Fugett, & Caputa,
2013); and to improve reading behavior (Siegenthaler, Wurtz, Bergamin, & Groner, 2011) and
engagement (Moody et al., 2010). Teachers use technology in the classroom to increase student
motivation (Gialamas & Nikolopoulou, 2010) and differentiate and facilitate student learning (Li
et al., 2010). This study explored mothers’ perceptions of the current technology use in
American schools and how this exosystem influence informed their technology decisions for
their preschool age children.
Further, mothers receive exosystem messages from the media (Ruggerio, 2012) about
mothering and motherhood (Collett, 2005). One example of exosystem influence is media
29
portrayal of a consumer culture of preparation (Afflerback, Carter, Anthony, & Grauerholz,
2013) that encourages expectant women to transition from the role of woman to mother through
the consumption rituals of “nesting” (preparing a physical place for the baby) and “gifting”
(seeking and receiving gifts for the baby; Afflerback, Carter, Anthony, & Grauerholz, 2014, p.
2). These purchasing and receiving rituals “perpetuate the gender system, both through gendering
the child and reinforcing the culture of motherhood” (Afflerback et al., 2014, p. 1) through the
mother’s choices (e.g., via a gift registry) about the items the child will have and use. Realizing
that mothers may receive messages similar or counter to these, this study investigated what
consumption messages mothers perceived and acted upon that affected their technology
decisions of what to purchase for themselves and their children.
Mothers receive exosystem messages through different types of media. Some mothers
find mothering support through social media such as Facebook (Bartholomew, SchoppeSullivan, Glassman, Kamp Dush, & Sullivan, 2012), Twitter (Thornton, 2013; Webster, 2010),
Pinterest (McCann & McCulloch, 2012), and blogging (Friedman, 2013). In her book,
Mommyblogs and the Changing Face of Motherhood May Friedman (2013) discussed the draw
of blogging:
Isolated and house-bound with my infant, I craved companionship. I turned on my
computer, looking for a representation of my experience, for writing that somehow
resonated with my frustrations and ambivalence . . . I leapt hungrily from blog to blog,
following links and references, thrilled to confirm that I was not the only new mother
feeling as I did. In turning to the mamasphere for wisdom, I found women who were
keepers of real-life experiences that soothed me, calmed my fears, and presented their
own contradictions and ambiguities. (p. 4)
30
The indirect influence of the exosystem of social media where mothers post their experiences
and beliefs for strangers to read and critique has the potential to influence mothers through
technology-mediated interactions. This study explored mothers’ perceptions of social media use
and how these perceptions influenced their personal technology decisions to engage in or limit
their social media use for their own benefit and that of their children.
Television is another type of media exosystem influence. Ninety-six percent of U.S.
homes have a TV, one-third of these homes have four or more TVs, and adults watch TV more
than 4 hours a day (Nielsen, 2014). A sociological study of television use and the family argued
that television is “a member of the family in a metaphorical sense but also in a literal sense
insofar as it is integrated into the daily pattern of domestic social relations, and insofar as it is the
focus of emotional or cognitive energy, releasing or containing tension for example, or providing
comfort or a sense of security” (Silverstone, 1994, p. 39). When television fills this role in a
family it can transfer exosystem messages about family life such as “the dynamics of a family’s
interaction, the dynamics of gender- or age-based identities and relations, or the dynamics of its
[the family’s] changing position in the world” (Silverstone, 1994, p. 40).
Television can also present exosystem messages to mothers (Afflerback et al., 2013;
Bradshaw, 2013; Freehling-Burton, 2012). When mothers watch live television they see
commercials promoting mother-oriented consumerism (qualities and characteristics mothers
identify with and seek for themselves through consumer behavior; Afflerback et al., 2013, p.
387). Mothers may dislike TV commercials and resist these consumerism messages but “today it
requires a substantial amount of effort to avoid the products of the culture industry” (Highmore,
2011, p. 115). Beyond the messages in commercials, mothers receive messages from the TV
shows they enjoy that portray various stereotypes, some presenting mothers in traditional
31
mothering roles (Freehling-Burton, 2012) and some presenting anti-heroine mother protagonists
(Bradshaw, 2013). Using television as a medium to present specific messages is not a new
phenomenon: “If the viewer perceives television content as representative of reality, one way to
change society is to change what we see on television"(Meehan, 1983, p. 9). Thus, it is important
to explore the exosystem messages mothers perceive about media and whether they ignore or act
upon these messages in their technology decisions for themselves and for their children.
Mesosystem and microsystem influences. Mothers are influenced by proximate
interactions that are both immediate (mesosystem) and intimate (microsystem). For example,
when a mother is pursuing an advanced degree, the college she attends is a mesosystem of
multiple (e.g., family, peers, professors) associative microsystems (Bronfenbrenner, 1976). Life
events such as continuing education can be studied through the PPCT model because it is a
lifespan model (Bronfenbrenner, 1995, 1999; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006); thus, it is
important to investigate how a mother’s current reflections on past experiences in the
mesosystem of a specific college, secondary, or elementary school inform her current technology
intention and use for herself and her child.
Mothers who have attended or are currently attending college interact as a student in a
school specific mesosystem with a developing personal microsystem of technology use.
Research of college students’ technology use behaviors suggests that, because students believe
Internet use can assist them academically, they use the Internet for web-based learning and
seeking academic help (Cheng & Tsai, 2011). Further examination of the mesosystems that
influence a mother’s personal technology decision development can extend before college to
when she was a secondary and elementary student. Research of both secondary and elementary
mesosystems indicate students value the usability of technology (Mao, 2014; Yu, Lin, Han, &
32
Hsu, 2012). High school students’ technology microsystem is characterized by a wide range of
technology use for significant periods of time (Rideout et al., 2010). Elementary and middle
school students can identify with and use technology so much that technology addictions can
form (Ko et al., 2005; Li, Zhang, Lu, Zhang, & Wang, 2014). Mothers whose current technology
preferences include web-based learning and a wide range of technology use for extended periods
of time may hearken back to their developing personal microsystem of technology preferences
and usage behaviors as students in a college, secondary, or elementary school.
Beyond the classroom, a mother who is employed is influenced by mesosystem and
microsystem interactions related to her work. More than half of mothers with young children in
the United States are working mothers (U.S. Department of Labor, 2013). Research of working
mothers and parenting quality indicate positive effects on child well-being (Yetis-Bayraktar,
Budig, & Tomaskovic-Devey, 2013) when the working mother has higher educational attainment
and uses these social resources to manage home and work responsibilities (Augustine &
Crosnoe, 2010). In contrast, parenting quality is lower with negative effects on child well-being
if a mother has lower educational attainment and is unemployed (Augustine, 2014). Mothers who
are employed have mesosystem and microsystem interactions that provide “psychosocial
resources such as social networks, a system of norms, and organizational skills that facilitate
more active and orchestrated parenting” (Augustine, 2014, p. 240). As working mothers actively
parent, they perceive a greater role set density (RSD), or how many roles they perceive and
perform (Kulik, & Liberman, 2013), as they manage home and work responsibilities.
Working mothers use technology in the home microsystem to manage work and home
connections. Social messages encourage mothers to bring their leadership and workplace skills
into home interactions (Cook, 2013). Cook (2013) described the social pressures and technology
33
decisions of working mothers: “they also are increasingly held morally and socially responsible
for virtually every aspect of the lives of their children. As such, many have become actively
engaged in influencing the kinds of products available for their children by making use of Web
2.0 technologies and social media” (p. 77). Given the emphasis on technology and management
of home and work responsibilities in the literature, this study explored how mothers perceive
technology influenced their role as a working or stay-at-home or mother.
Both working and stay-at-home-mothers’ role perceptions are informed by two different
beliefs about being a good mother (Christopher, 2012). Some mothers identify with intensive
parenting believing, “good childrearing requires the day-to-day labor of nurturing the child,
listening to the child, attempting to decipher the child’s needs and desires, struggling to meet the
child’s wishes, and placing the child’s well-being ahead of their own convenience” (Hayes,
1996, p. 115). Other mothers, particularly working mothers, may identify with extensive
parenting believing motherhood is leveraged leadership, delegated authority to caregivers, and
attention to maternal needs while managing career and/or home roles (Christopher, 2012 p. 91).
These contrasting perceptions of the mothering role involve actions occurring within and without
the microsystem of the home and proximal process interactions that change over time.
Time characteristics. The last of the four elements (process, person, context, and time;
Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006) of the PPCT model is time. Bronfenbrenner and Morris
(1998, 2006) studied proximal processes and time at three levels: macrotime, mesotime, and
microtime. The bioecological representation (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006) of the
chronosystem (Bronfenbrenner 1988) from ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) is
macrotime which describes “the changing expectations and events in the larger society, both
within and across generations’’ (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006, p. 796). A working or stay-at-
34
home mother’s current role perceptions may be a reaction to her generational reflections on her
mother’s role perception. Mesotime denotes consistent interactions or routine activities that occur
over days and weeks (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006). A mother who reads to her child
every night before bedtime is engaged in an ongoing proximal process of mesotime. Microtime
occurs during a specific interaction or action (Bronfenbrenner & Morris 1998, 2006; Tudge et
al., 2009). A mother who answers her cell phone while the family is eating dinner is acting in
microtime during a specific interaction (dinner with the family). As it relates to this study, a
mother’s technology decisions are influenced by the macrotime of evolving social expectations
(macrotime), routine (mesotime), and spur of the moment (microtime) technology choices.
Studying a mother’s technology decisions contextualized by time is important to understand how
her long term and short term technology decisions affect her development and that of her child in
the home environment.
Formalized at the beginning stages of the Information Age, the PPCT model
(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006) explored complex, bidirectional human interactions
more than interactions between humans and objects (Rosa & Tudge, 2013, p. 253). While this
complex interaction process had not been studied with mothers and their technology decisions
for themselves and for their preschool age children, the PPCT model situated current literature’s
limited understandings of human interactions in a lifespan development model that could be
merged with the UTAUT model’s explanation of technology intention and use.
The UTAUT model and the PPCT model describe human and object interactions and
environmental factors. Research has connected the PPCT model to technology (Johnson, 2010;
Johnson & Puplampu, 2008), and examined the influence of proximal processes (Bronfenbrenner
& Ceci, 1993; Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000), person characteristics (Bronfenbrenner &
35
Morris, 1998, 2006), and technology-related context systems both immediate (Hollingworth et
al., 2011; Plowman et al., 2011; van Steensel et al., 2011) and remote (Brynjolfsson & Saunders,
2010; Schnellert & Keengwe, 2012; Wright et al., 2013) on an individual. Yet, the PPCT model
does not explain how an individual accepts and uses technology. The UTAUT model describes
the determinants and moderators of an individual’s technology intention and use, but it does not
explain how an individual forms technology preferences. Research describes how individuals
form technology preferences (Jaafar et al., 2014; Muthitcharoen et al., 2011), but shares a
common limitation with the UTAUT model by not explaining how an individual forms and uses
technology preferences to make technology decisions for another. The TPACK framework
(Mishra & Koehler, 2006) explains how classroom teachers make curricular technology
decisions for themselves and for students, but these pedagogically-linked technology decisions
do not provide understanding about mothers’ technology decision process for their preschool age
child in the home environment.
Unexplored research connections between the PPCT and UTAUT models were examined
by this study’s exploration of a mother’s technology decision-making for herself and for her
child. These research connections provided greater understanding of the proximal processes of
human and object interactions and the environmental factors that influence human perception.
These understandings support women in their role as mothers by informing their technology
decision-making and ultimately promoting the development and well-being of their children
(Bronfenbrenner 1994, 1995b, 2000, 2001; Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Bronfenbrenner &
Evans, 2000; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006).
36
Situation to Self
I came to this study from the perspective of a digital visitor conceptualizing technology
as a tool for situational use (White, & Le Cornu, 2011). In keeping with this study’s use of the
term technology to describe emergent or established ICT, my first experience with computers
was in a high school typing class using computer lab desktops to complete typing exercises.
Through trial and error, I picked up the skills I needed to complete many digital tasks required by
my teaching career. When I was a general education teacher, I learned how to use grade keeping
software, PowerPoint, and a Smartboard. As a university instructor, I learned new skills such as
editing technology-mediated residential and online coursework. Every school year brings new
software, devices, and opportunities to keep up with tech savvy college students.
I acknowledge my researcher bias in this study. Philosophically and pedagogically, I
think of myself as a technology rebel. I advocate strongly for technology use and paperless
teaching, but I advocate just as strongly for thoughtful technology boundaries. In a technology
lecture to college faculty, I described my personal philosophy of technology as Control Comfort
Access (CCA) (Wicks, 2010). This philosophy helps me choose technology that supports my life
and work tasks without added distraction. My technology preferences and use seem
contradictory—I teach online college classes, I prefer researching using online sources, and I
teach residential college classes with a Smartboard, but I do not own a cell phone. For me these
elements are not contradictory because they are situated in my personal philosophy of
technology (CCA) and prompt personal reflective questions such as: (a) Can I control this
technology effectively? (b) Do I feel comfortable with the effort and time expended using this
technology? and (c) Does this technology afford me adequate levels of personal privacy? How I
answer these questions guides my consideration of devices, software, and Internet use.
37
My researcher lens was the viewpoint of an experienced educator who has no children of
her own. As I reflected on my teaching experiences in a variety of learning settings (daycare,
general education, adult basic education, and undergraduate and graduate teacher preparation),
my post-positivist paradigm (human knowledge is always changing based on further
investigation; knowledge is in a continual state of change; Phillips & Barbules, 2000) led me to
believe that each of these different learning settings have a common element—the continuing
influence of the home on the learner. Recent studies on the influence of the home on vocabulary
and language (Asgari & Mustapha, 2011), literacy skills (Martini & Senechal, 2012),
appreciation and involvement in school art programs (Melnick, Witmer, & Strickland, 2011), and
technology use (Davies, 2011) show the influence of the home on student learning success,
making a study of children’s preschool age experiences of additional importance.
Assuming the axiological position that the family is the first and most valuable
relationship, I pursued this gap in the literature concerning the value-laden technology decisions
mothers make for their children. I believe examination of mothers’ technology decisions will
help family and education stakeholders understand and support mothers in their efforts to nurture
and train their children for the technological and contemporary realities of culture.
Problem Statement
Research examines key elements of the proximal processes defined in Bronfenbrenner’s
bioecological theory (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993, 1994), organized within the PPCT model
(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006), and evidenced in technology decisions related to
national interest (Brynjolfsson & Saunders, 2010; Dimelis & Papaioannou, 2011; Johanson,
2010; Jones & Brown, 2011; Lebens et al., 2009), national schooling goals (Ko, Chiang, Lin, &
Chen, 2011; Couse & Chen, 2010; Korat, 2010; Moody et al., 2010; Schnellert & Keengwe,
38
2012; Siegenthaler et al., 2011; Wright et al., 2013) and national teacher practices (Gialamas &
Nikolopoulou, 2010; Li et al., 2010), as well as media messages about motherhood (Afflerback et
al., 2013; Bradshaw, 2013; Collett, 2005; Freehling-Burton, 2012; Friedman, 2013; Ruggerio,
2012) and a mother’s past experiences as a student in school specific mesosystems (Acosta,
2014; Cheng & Tsai, 2011; Mao, 2014; Rideout et al., 2010; Yu et al., 2012) and home
microsystems (Grant, 2011; Herold, 2011; Hollingworth et al., 2011; Korat, & Or, 2010;
Mawson, 2010; Plowman et al., 2010; Plowman et al., 2011; van Steensel et al., 2011). Research
examines the factors that determine and moderate an individual’s technology intention and use
through the UTAUT model (Venkatesh et al., 2003) and investigates how individuals form
technology preferences (Jaafar et al., 2014; Muthitcharoen et al., 2011), but research does not
explain how an individual forms and uses technology preferences to make technology decisions
for another. The TPACK framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) describes the pedagogical
considerations that inform teachers’ technology decisions for themselves and for students in the
classroom environment but does not provide insight into mothers’ technology decisions for their
preschool age children in the home environment. Thus, the literature afforded a limited
understanding about the proximal process of technology decision-making an individual makes
for themselves and for another, and specifically how mothers make technology decisions for
their preschool age children in the home environment.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this systematic grounded theory study was to explore the technology
decision process mothers use when making technology decisions for their preschool age children
in the home environment. The focus of this study was to identify the influences that shape a
mother’s technology preference, use, and decision-making for herself and for her child thereby
39
producing a theoretical model that expands and connects elements of the PPCT model of
Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993, 1994) and the UTAUT
model of technology intention and use. In this study, the term preschool age child identified
children ages 3 to 5 years old who do not attend a school, certified preschool, or educative child
day center (Virginia Department of Social Services, 2013). The term technology signified
emergent or established (Halaweh, 2013) data, voice, or video (Melody, 1986; Rideout et al.,
2010) information communication technology (ICT). Technology decisions were defined as the
reactive or purposeful choices an individual makes to own, use, or control another individual’s
use of technology (Ajzen 1985, 1989, 1991).
Significance of the Study
The theoretical significance of this study is gaining a better understanding of the
proximal processes and technology-related determinants and moderators that influence a
mother’s personal technology intention and the technology decisions she makes for her preschool
age child. The PPCT model (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006) of Bronfenbrenner’s
bioecological theory (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993, 1994) identifies how process, person,
context, and time characteristics affect human development through increasingly complex
reciprocal interactions between individuals (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994) who exercise will
and control over their personal environment and development, and that of others
(Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993). The UTAUT model connects to the PPCT model by explaining
the factors that determine and moderate an individual’s will and control over their technology
intention and use. Neither theoretical model explains the factors that influence how mothers
make technology decisions for their children. Studying a mother’s technology decision process
and the proximal interactions whereby she exerts will and control over her personal technology
40
environment and development and that of her preschool age child addressed this gap in the
theoretical literature.
This study answered calls for empirical research to explore additional determinant and
moderating factors (Alharbi, 2014; Oh & Yoon, 2014) related to the UTAUT model by exploring
how mothers form personal technology preferences, how their technology intention and use
affects their technology decisions for their children, and how mothers ascribe meaning to their
children’s use of technology. This study addressed the call for additional research into informal
ICT learning in the home (Lahtinen, 2012) from a mother’s perspective. This study furthered
existing research evidence about how adults introduce children to technology and facilitate
device and software use (Hollingworth et al., 2011; Mawson, 2010; Plowman et al., 2010). This
study provided a mother’s perspective regarding children’s performance of specific tasks using
technology selected by adults (Couse & Chen, 2010; Isomursu, Ervasti, Kinnula, & Isomursu,
2011; Lebens et al., 2009; Ntuli & Kyei-Blankson, 2012).
The practical significance of the model this study generated is to provide greater
understanding of how mothers make technology decisions for themselves and for their preschool
age child. Mothers receive social messages about technology and parenting designed to “reassure
them and help them to realize that the digital immersion is a good thing for their kids” (Tapscott,
2008, p. 8). This research model identified the technology decisions mothers make for
themselves and their children thereby informing American women in their motherhood roles as
caregivers (Brown, et al., 2011; Song, et al., 2014; Tottenham et al., 2012) and decision makers
(Jang et al., 2015) so they can use technology to support their own development while promoting
their children’s development and ultimate well-being (Bronfenbrenner 1994, 1995b, 2000, 2001;
Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998,
41
2006). To that end, this study may also inform early educators who have a primary caregiver
relationship with children and want to support the home environment in preschools.
Research Questions
Three research questions guided this systematic grounded theory study of the technology
decision process mothers use when making technology decisions for their preschool age children
in the home environment.
Research Question 1. What factors influence how a mother of a preschool age child
forms personal technology preferences?
Research described the factors that determine and moderate an individual’s technology
intention and use (Venkatesh et al., 2003) and how individuals form personal technology
preferences (Jaafar et al., 2014; Muthitcharoen et al., 2011) but research did not explain the
process by which an individual uses personal technology preferences to inform and make
technology decisions for another. Research (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) of how classroom teachers
make technology decisions for themselves and for students offered limited insight into mothers’
technology decisions for their preschool age children in the home environment. Research
indicated mothers use technology in the home microsystem to manage work and home
connections (Cook, 2013), give (Lin 2001) and glean information (Harpham, Grant, & Thomas,
2002; Putnam, 2000), and connect to friends and family (Bartholomew et al., 2012). Yet,
research did not indicate what factors influence a mother’s formation of personal technology
preferences that influence her technology decision-making for herself and for her child. Working
mothers or stay-at-home mothers may perceive different social messages and feel different
pressures of responsibility in the technology decisions they make for themselves and their
children. Further, it was unknown how older mothers of preschool age children differed in their
42
technology preferences and decision processes from younger mothers based on the types of
technology they grew up with, when they first used a computer, and what they think about
technology now.
Research Question 2. How does a mother’s personal technology preferences and
technology use affect her technology decisions for her preschool age child?
The process, person, context, and time characteristics of the PPCT model
(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006) of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory
(Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993, 1994) explored how an individual controls their personal
development and environment and that of others through frequent and complex interactions
(Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993). Research identified how perception of gender role influences an
individual’s use of power and control (De Coster, 2012). Women in the role of mothers exercise
will and control as they use technology for self-instruction (Fleming, Vandermause, & Shaw,
2014), information giving (Sinclair, 2013) and experience sharing (Friedman, 2013; Madge &
O’Connor, 2006). Research (Venkatesh et al., 2003) of technology intention and use indicated
age and experience are significant moderators in how a woman uses technology. Yet, it was
unknown how a mother’s technology experiences affect her technology decision process for her
preschool age child. When a mother uses technology to accomplish certain tasks, she may expect
her child to do the same (Weisskirch, 2011). It was unknown if a mother’s technology preference
and use guides or controls her young child’s technology use.
Research Question 3. What factors influence how a mother ascribes meaning to her
preschool age child’s use of technology?
The UTAUT model explains the effect of social influence on an individual’s intention to
use technology (Venkatesh et al., 2003). This socially-derived tech image and its importance is
43
moderated by gender, age, and experience (Venkatesh et al., 2003, p. 447). What parents think
about their older children’s technology use is related to social scenarios involving how much
time the child spends with technology and what websites he or she visits which may prompt
parents to act and respond in accordance with their perceived role and responsibilities in the
changing parent/child relationship (Hertlein, 2012). Research of parental technology mediation
of older children shows control of older children’s online experiences (Fletcher & Blair, 2014b;
Vaterlaus, Beckert, Tulane, & Bird, 2014). Yet research did not describe how a mother attributes
meaning to her preschool age child’s technology use which may influence how she facilitates or
oversees their use. A mother may perceive her child’s technology use to change over time in a
manner similar to changes in her own technology use. How a mother controlled her changing
technology use and that of her developing child was unknown.
Research Plan
Qualitative inquiry facilitated the exploration of the technology decision process mothers
use for their preschool age children in the home environment. Qualitative research “consists of a
set of interpretive, material practices that make the world visible” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p.
3). This study’s explanation of the technology decision process mothers use when making
technology decisions for their preschool age children in the home environment benefitted from a
qualitative, visible depiction of the proximal processes. Qualitative practices, such as interviews
and focus groups, and qualitative researcher craft, such as memoing and thick description, made
the world of mothers’ technology preferences and decision-making visible and describable.
This systematic grounded theory study involved a snowball and maximum variation
sampling of 18 mothers of preschool age children living in urban, suburban, and rural areas
located in or around a college town in central Virginia. Upon receipt of signed consent, each
44
mother filled out a demographics questionnaire about herself and her child. I reflectively
analyzed this data and added clarifying questions to those already a part of the semi-structured
interview. I conducted video/audio recorded semi-structured interviews. After individual
interviews were completed, I held focus groups with participating mothers to confirm category
saturation and provide the opportunity for member checking. All data were analyzed using open
coding and memoing, axial coding, and theoretical coding to form a theoretical paradigm process
model (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) of mothers’ technology decisions for their children.
Delimitations
I delimited this study to mothers who have an oldest child of preschool age but without
the child attending a formal preschool. This delimitation allowed me to study mothers’ reasoning
processes with limited influence from teachers or formal school settings.
I did not analyze fathers’ technology preferences, use, or technology decisions for their
children because research suggests a father’s role may be discretionary and less well-defined in
families with traditional gender roles (Brown et al., 2011; Cabrera, Tamis-LeMonda, Bradley,
Hofferth, & Lamb, 2000). Gender roles involve power and control (De Coster, 2012, p. 587)
over environments or individuals. Traditionally, men’s “gender role is associated with being
dominant and assertive” (Fischer & Anderson, 2012, p. 17) as they provide for the financial
needs of the family. Women in traditional gender roles are “expected to be the caregiver of
children, a gender role associated with being nurturing and affectionate” (Fischer & Anderson,
2012, p. 17). While this study included both working and stay-at-home mothers, it excluded
fathers because the father role in the family in regard to gender-typed characteristics and gender
role attitudes is less defined and researched (Fischer & Anderson, 2012, p. 18).
45
I made two assumptions in this study. Acknowledging the theory of planned behavior
(Ajzen 1985, 1989, 1991), I defined technology decisions in its broadest sense as the reactive or
purposeful choices an individual makes to own, use, or control another individual’s use of
technology. Second, I assumed that the technology decision process of mothers living in a
southern locale with a traditional “Bible belt” culture in urban, suburban, and rural areas located
in or around a college town in central Virginia is transferable to mothers in urban, suburban, or
rural areas in other traditional “Bible belt” cultural regions or college towns of the United States.
Summary
This chapter began with a brief overview of the research context and the research gap that
necessitated the study. I described the origins and key constructs of the UTAUT model and the
limitations of the model concerning an individual’s technology preferences and technology
choices for another. I described the origins of the PPCT model by identifying key conceptual
transitions from ecological to bioecological theory. I noted the limitations of this model in terms
of explaining the process by which an individual accepts and uses technology. I described the
research problem and the purpose of this research followed by the research questions that
informed this study. The chapter concluded with an explanation of the research plan and study
delimitations.
46
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Overview
Research in developmental psychology describes the social and learning interactions
between mother and child (Beebe, 1982; Bruner, 1976, 1983; Kaye, 1982; Schaffer, 1977;
Trevarthen, 1998). Yet, there was limited theoretical understanding of how mothers facilitate
children’s technology use at home through their technology decision-making for their child
before they enter school or start homeschooling. Theoretical literature identified the role of
technology preference (Jaafar et al., 2014; Muthitcharoen et al., 2011) and the factors that
determine and moderate an individual’s selection and use of technology (Venkatesh et al., 2003),
but literature did not describe how an individual forms technology preferences that inform the
technology decisions they make for another. Pedagogical research (Mishra & Koehler, 2006)
described classroom environments where teachers make technology decisions for themselves and
for their students which provided limited insight into non-curricular technology decisions outside
the classroom. Thus, research literature afforded a limited understanding about the proximal
process of technology decision-making an individual makes for themselves and for another, and
specifically how mothers form personal technology preferences, how their technology
preferences affect their technology decisions for their children, and how mothers ascribe
meaning to their children’s use of technology in the home environment. Thus, the purpose of this
systematic grounded theory study was to explain the technology decision process mothers use to
make technology decisions for their preschool age children in the home. Such a study was
necessary to better understand the process mothers use when making technology decisions for
their preschool age children which furthers current understandings about the interactions shared
by mother and child and informs mothers about how their technology decision-making promotes
47
their children’s development and well-being (Bronfenbrenner, 1994, 1995b, 2000, 2001;
Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998,
2006).
In this chapter, I examine the theoretical and empirical literature on the interactions
affecting mothers’ technology decisions through the conceptual framework of the Unified
Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model (Venkatesh et al., 2003) and the
Process-Person-Context-Time (PPCT) model (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). The chapter
includes related literature concerning the individual, social, and environmental factors related to
technology decisions within and without the home. The chapter concludes with the research gap
that necessitated this study.
Conceptual Framework
Understanding the individual, social, and environmental factors affecting the technology
decisions of mothers required a conceptual framework. A conceptual framework provides a
“map” (Miles & Huberman, 1994) for investigating “grand theories” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) or
what is known about topics related to those examined in this study. The connections in this
framework formed the basis for developing new connections that extended known theories and
generated substantive theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 113) about the technology decisions
mothers make for their preschool age children. The UTAUT model and PPCT model were a
good theoretical fit for describing the proximal system of individual, social, and environmental
factors that affect the technology decision process mothers make for their preschool age children
in the home environment.
48
Individual Factors of Behavior and Technology Use: Origins of the UTAUT Model.
The UTAUT model (Venkatesh et al., 2003) was developed by synthesizing the
constructs of eight previous theories/models that explain information systems usage: Theory of
Reasoned Action (TRA; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM; Davis, 1986, 1989), Motivational Model (MM; Davis, Bagozzi,,&
Warshaw, 1992), Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB; Ajzen 1985, 1991), Model Combining the
Technology Acceptance Model and Theory of Planned Behavior (C-TAM-TPB; Taylor & Todd,
1995), Model of PC Utilization (MPCU; Thompson, Higgins, & Howell, 1991), Innovation
Diffusion Theory (IDT; Rogers, 1983), and Social Cognitive Theory (SCT; Bandura, 1986). The
UTAUT model integrated 32 factors from these eight theories/models (Yu, 2012) to describe the
factors that determine and moderate an individual’s technology intention and use. Multiple
theories/models can be linked to the formation of each UTAUT (Venkatesh et al., 2003)
construct, but the theoretical origins of the UTAUT model that relate most to this study are the
conceptualization of attitude, intention, and use beginning with the development of TAM (Davis,
1986, 1989) and TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) from elements of TRA.
The behavioral theory TRA describes the determinants of consciously intended behaviors
(Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) whereby an individual’s positive or negative
attitude about a behavior and perceptions of subjective norm (what others think about the
individual performing the behavior; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, p. 302) inform an individual’s
intention to perform a specific behavior. TRA posits that an individual’s belief and evaluation of
the consequences of a behavior determine an individual’s attitude (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, p.
29). In like manner, subjective norm is influenced by an individual’s perceptions about the
beliefs and expectations of a group and the individual’s motivation to comply with group beliefs
49
(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, p. 302). TRA does not explain the influence of belief, attitude, and
intention on the decisions an individual makes for another, and specifically, the beliefs and
attitudes that guide a mother’s technology decisions for her preschool age child.
Conceptualizing technology use as a behavior, TAM (Davis, 1986, 1989) adapted
elements of the behavior theory TRA to technology. TAM explains that an individual’s
technology intention and use behaviors are determined by two beliefs: perceived usefulness and
perceived ease of use. Perceived usefulness is a key determinant of technology intention and use
(Venkatesh & Davis, 1996). Perceived ease of use is a direct determinant of perceived usefulness
(Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) and a determinant of technology intention and use (Venkatesh &
Davis, 1996).
Developing research understandings (Davis, 1986, 1989, 1993; Davis, Bagozzi,
&Warshaw, 1989; Venkatesh & Davis, 1996) changed the conceptualization of attitude and
intention in TAM. Originally, TAM posited that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use
determined an individual’s attitude toward using technology (Davis, 1986, p. 24). Continuing
research (Davis, 1989; Davis et al., 1989) found that “attitudes do not fully mediate the effect of
perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use on behavior” (Davis, 1989, p. 335) and that
intention is a better predictor of technology use. Thus, TAM was revised to include intention as a
direct determinant of technology use to provide “a basis for tracing the impact of external factors
on internal beliefs, attitudes, and intentions” (Davis et al., 1989, p. 985). In the final version of
TAM, the attitude construct was removed (Venkatesh & Davis, 1996 p. 453) “because of partial
mediation of the impact of beliefs on intention by attitude, a weak direct link between perceived
usefulness and attitude, and a strong direct link between perceived usefulness and intention”
(Venkatesh, 2000, p. 344). While research has replicated (Adams, Nelson, & Todd, 1992) and
50
validated (Hendrickson, Massey, & Cronan, 1993) and widely applied (Chen, Li, S.; & Li, C.,
2011; Elkaseh, Wong, & Fung, 2015) TAM, its generalizability is a strength and limitation
(Venkatesh, 2000). TAM can be applied to a study of a mother’s technology decisions with
regard to her perception of technology usefulness and ease of use, but the model does not
describe what beliefs determined her perceptions.
The TAM model is limited in its ability to identify the antecedents that influence an
individual’s perceptions of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use (Venkatesh & Davis
1996 p. 473). To address this limitation TAM was theoretically expanded in TAM2 (Venkatesh
& Davis, 2000) to explain perceived usefulness and usage intentions through social influence
processes (subjective norm, image, and voluntariness) and cognitive instrumental processes (job
relevance, output quality, result demonstrability, and perceived ease of use). Perceived ease of
use, perceived usefulness, and subjective norm directly affect intention to use and ultimately
usage behavior. Answering calls for additional research into “the conditions and mechanisms”
(Davis et al., 1989, p. 999) of social influence, TAM2 identified subjective norm as a direct
effect on technology intention and use in mandatory contexts (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). The
combined effect of social influences and cognitive instrumental processes explained 60% of the
variance in technology intention and use (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000, p. 198). This confirmed the
relevance of additional research (Agarwal & Prasad, 1997; Karahanna, Straub, & Chervany,
1999; Sussman, & Siegal, 2003) into the antecedent influences on perceived usefulness and
perceived ease of use and made UTAUT a necessary model to consolidate the key components
of the eight primary theories/models used in information system research.
51
Individual Factors of Technology Intention and Use: The UTAUT Model.
Integrating 32 key factors from eight theories/models (Yu, 2012), the UTAUT model
provides a holistic description of four main effects and four moderating effects (Oye, A. Iahad, &
Nor Zairah, 2012) on an individual’s intention to use and subsequent use behaviors (hereafter
referred to as intention and use). UTAUT conceptualized four direct determinants of technology
intention and/or use (performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating
conditions; Venkatesh et al., 2003). The theory identifies how gender, age, experience, and
voluntariness of use moderate the influence of the four determinant constructs on technology
intention and use.
Derived from the TAM/TAM2 construct of perceived usefulness, the UTAUT construct
performance expectancy identifies how individuals perceive using a form of technology will
improve their task performance (Venkatesh et al., 2003). This construct is the strongest predictor
of an individual’s technology intention (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000; Venkatesh et
al., 2003). Research indicates the strength of this relationship is moderated by age (Morris,
Venkatesh, & Ackerman, 2005) and gender (Venkatesh et al., 2003; Venkatesh & Zhang 2010),
making the relationship significant in younger workers and men (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Some
studies note age is not a moderating effect on an individual’s perception of performance
expectancy and use in e-learning (Oye, A. Iahad, & Nor Zairah, 2011) or e-commerce (Yu, 2012)
and that performance expectancy is not a significant effect on continuance intention and use of elearning in a higher education context (Azlina, Razak, & Abdulla, 2013). Responding to calls for
more research of age-related variables in UTAUT (Parameswaran, Kishore, & Li, 2015), this
study of younger and older mothers’ technology decisions was needed to better understand the
52
moderating influence of age on mothers’ perceptions of performance expectancy on her own
technology decisions and those made for her child in the home context.
Related to the TAM/TAM 2 construct perceived ease of use, UTAUT’s construct effort
expectancy describes an individual’s perception about “the degree of ease” associated with using
a form of technology (Venkatesh et al., 2003, p. 450). The effect of effort expectancy on
technology intention is moderated by age (Morris & Venkatesh 2000; Yu, 2012), gender
(Bozionelos, 1996), and experience (Venkatesh et al., 2003) making this effect strongest for
older women who have little experience using a particular form of technology (Venkatesh &
Morris, 2000; Venkatesh & Zhang 2010). Literature supports effort expectancy as a significant
influence on individual’s use of mobile technologies (Lu, Yu, & Liu, 2009; Park, Yang, & Lehto,
2007), technology services such as Internet banking (Al-Qeisi et al., 2015), and online shopping
(Musleh et al., 2015). Literature suggests age is a moderating factor of effort expectancy and
tablet use (Magsamen-Conrad, Upadhyaya, Joa, & Dowd, 2015). This study of mothers’
technology decisions was important to understand how effort expectancy influenced perceptions
of ease among older and younger mothers when they used new technology and made technology
decisions for themselves and their preschool age children.
Taken from descriptions of subjective norm in TRA and TAM2, the UTAUT construct,
social influence identifies the importance an individual places in others’ beliefs about his or her
technology intention and use (Venkatesh et al., 2003). This construct addresses some of the
thinking and belief limitations (Pijpers, 2001) of the TAM model by describing the cognitive and
social processes (Oye et al., 2014) that encourage or limit an individual’s technology intention
and use. The relationship between social influence and an individual’s technology intention and
use is moderated by all UTAUT moderators (age, gender, experience, and voluntariness of use)
53
making the effect most significant for older women who must use a form of technology that they
have only begun to use (Venkatesh & Morris, 2000). When women use new technology, they
will be more aware of social influences than men (Musleh et al., 2015; Venkatesh et al., 2000)
which can lessen with experience (Venkatesh & Morris, 2000). Empirical literature finds social
influence is a significant determinant of intention and use in e-commerce (Bozorgkhou, 2015;
Jaradat & Al Rababaa, 2013) and younger individuals using online banking services (Yu, 2012).
This study of a mother’s technology decisions explored whether a mother’s age and inexperience
with new technology influenced her technology decisions for herself and for her child.
One UTAUT construct that directly determines technology use is facilitating conditions
which describe an individual’s perception that help mechanisms support his or her technology
use (Venkatesh et al., 2003, p. 453). The effect of facilitating conditions on use behavior is
moderated by age and experience (Venkatesh et al., 2003, p. 447). Facilitating conditions will
improve an individual’s technology experience and proficiency as they use technology (Joshua &
Koshy, 2011). Older women value facilitating conditions based on how experienced they are
using technology (Venkatesh et al. 2012). Research notes facilitating conditions are significant in
predicting an individual’s use of e-commerce (Bozorgkhou, 2015) and e-learning (Attuquayefio
& Addo, 2014; Azlina, Razak, & Abdulla, 2013) particularly for older students (Khechine,
Lakhal, Pascot & Bytha, 2014). Some e-learning research finds no significance between
facilitating conditions and technology use (Thomas et al., 2014). Each e-learning study
(Attuquayefio & Addo, 2014; Azlina et al., 2013; Khechine et al., 2014; Thomas et al., 2014)
emphasized the role of context on their facilitating conditions findings. In the home context,
parents are a system of technology support that can improve their children’s proficiency in online
learning experiences (Eynon & Malmberg, 2011). To better understand how facilitating
54
conditions determine technology use in the home environment, this study of mothers’ technology
decisions explored a mother’s perceptions of technology support regarding what devices she
bought, how she used devices, and other technology decisions that affected her technology use
and facilitation of her preschool age child’s technology use.
The UTAUT model provides understanding of technology intention and use in
organizational (Maillet et al., 2015; Venkatesh et al., 2003) and non-organizational settings
(Venkatesh et al., 2012), different cultures (Al-Qeisi et al., 2015; Belkhamza & Wafa, 2013;
Musleh et al., 2015; Nistor et al., 2013; Thomas et al., 2014) and populations (Bozorgkhou,
2015; Kaba & Touré, 2014; Khechine, et al., 2014; Magsamen-Conrad et al., 2015; Raman et al.,
2014). UTAUT has a broad theoretical acceptance (Im et al., 2011) that is often applied to elearning use and management (Marchewka, Liu, & Kostiwa, 2007; Oh & Yoon, 2014),
technology acceptance in education (Nistor, Göüs, & Lerche, 2013; Raman et al., 2014), and
contexts such as e-commerce (Al-Qeisi & Al-Abdallah, 2014; Yu, 2012), e-government (Nasri,
2014), and health information technology (Maillet, Mathieu, & Sicotte, 2015; Vinko, Brecelj,
Erzen, & Dinevski, 2013). However, the UTAUT model (Venkatesh et al., 2003) had not been
extended to a bioecological understanding of proximal characteristics describing the process of
how a mother’s personal technology intention and use mediates the technology decisions she
makes for her preschool age child in the home context. Such an understanding would
conceptualize the determinant and moderator factors of a mother’s technology intention for
herself and for her child situated in the proximal processes of the home environment.
Individual, Social, and Environmental Factors in the PPCT Model
The PPCT model represents the fullest development of Bronfenbrenner’s research (Tudge
et al., 2009) into the interrelatedness of an individual and the social environment (Tudge, Gray,
55
& Hogan, 1997). In the first phase of his research (Rosa & Tudge, 2013), Bronfenbrenner’s
(1979) ecological theory argued that, “the scientific understanding of the basic intrapsychic and
interpersonal processes of human development requires their investigation in actual environment,
both immediate and remote, in which the human beings live” (p. 12). Bronfenbrenner’s (1975,
1979) use of the term ecology represented the “adjustment” (1975, p. 439) and “accommodation”
(1979, p. 21) that occur between humans and environments. A woman becoming a mother is an
example of an adjustment and accommodation occurring between a social environment and a
person. One author suggests, “A woman entering motherhood can experience changes in her
bodily experience and functions, her emotions and psychology, her sleep and work schedules, the
tasks she performs, her social circle, her sense of self, her sexuality, and the roles she plays”
(Nelson, 2009, p. 12). Thus, ecological theory conceptualizes the reciprocal accommodation
effects that occur between an individual and the environment (Bronfenbrenner 1976, 1978) and
the term ecological refers to the social interaction system of a person and context
(Bronfenbrenner, 1976; Rosa & Tudge, 2013).
Bronfenbrenner (1974, 1976, 1978) also studied a variety of complex interactions he
termed second order effects (a third person of influence within a system), and higher order
effects (several people influencing relationship interactions within a system). Welcoming a child
into the husband and wife relationship is an example of a second order effect within the home
microsystem. When the grandparents come to visit the new baby and the parents, this is a higher
order effect on the relational interactions in the microsystem. As Bronfenbrenner (1988, 1989,
1999) continued to research the complexities of human interactions in social environments his
continuous revision of ecological theory redirected his study of human development from
examining environment and human response to a study of proximal processes conceptualized
56
through bioecological theory (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993, 1994) and represented in the PPCT
model.
Bioecological Process Characteristics and Technology Decisions. Bronfenbrenner’s
bioecological theory (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993, 1994) of human development provides
insight into how human genetic potential can vary in actualization by the strength of proximal
processes and the characteristics of living environments (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994, p. 570).
Bronfenbrenner and Ceci (1994) described proximal processes as “reciprocal interaction” (p.
572) whereby an individual is influenced by an immediate environment while exerting influence
on that environment. Bioecological theory (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993, 1994) has two key
propositions. First, over the course of a lifetime, an individual’s development is influenced by
the regularity and complexity of their reciprocal interactions (proximal processes) with people
and objects (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994). Second, the “form, power, content, and direction of
the proximal processes that affect development vary systematically as a joint function of the
characteristics of the developing person and the environment (both immediate and remote)”
(Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994, p. 317). A mother’s development has been influenced by her past
proximal interactions (Van Parys, Smith, & Rober, 2014) with people and objects, and continues
to be influenced. As a primary caregiver, a mother’s social interactions with people and objects
for herself also influences the development of her child (Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Regalia,
& Scabini, 2011).
Bronfenbrenner posited that proximal processes support positive individual development
and lessen negative effects of dysfunction (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993, 1994; Bronfenbrenner
& Morris, 2006). Bronfenbrenner and Evans (2000) described dysfunction as an individual’s
failure “in maintaining control and integration of behavior across situations and different
57
domains of development” (p. 118). The opposite of dysfunction is competence which
Bronfenbrenner and Evans (2000) described as demonstration of continuing “development of
knowledge, skill, or ability to conduct and direct one’s own behavior across situations and
developmental domains’’ (p. 188). For example, socioeconomic factors can influence proximal
processes in supporting or undermining an individual’s development and functional competence
(Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994, p. 578). Bronfenbrenner’s continuing study led him to describe
how these positive or negative environmental interactions can affect human genetic potential
(Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994, p. 572). While these heritability suppositions are outside the
scope of this study, what is relevant to this study is the assertion that proximal interactions and
environmental factors can exert tremendous influence on individuals and between individuals. In
the PPCT model, proximal processes are the “primary mechanisms producing human
development” (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, p. 994). Thus, this study of a mother’s
technology decisions was necessary to understand how proximal interactions and environmental
factors exert positive or negative influence on a mother’s technology decisions for herself and for
her preschool child. These factors could influence what technology she lets her child use and
how she oversees her child’s technology use.
Bioecological Person Characteristics and Technology Decisions. As Bronfenbrenner
and Morris (1998, 2006) studied proximal processes they recognized three distinctive person
characteristics (force, demand, and resource characteristics) that influence human interaction and
developmental outcomes. As a mother matures, the proximal processes that affect her
development may be influenced by force characteristics that can generate or disrupt proximal
processes between individuals (Bronfenbrenner & Morris 1998, 2006). Generative force
characteristics are “such active orientations as curiosity, tendency to initiate and engage in
58
activity alone or with others, responsiveness to initiatives by others, and readiness to defer
immediate gratification to pursue long-term goals’’ (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006, p. 810). As
Bronfenbrenner and Morris (1998, 2006) explored generative force person characteristics, they
noticed disruptive force characteristics in individuals such as “impulsiveness, explosiveness,
distractibility, inability to defer gratification, or, in a more extreme form . . . aggression and
violence’’ (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, p. 1009; 2006, p. 810). Disruptive force
characteristics block and limit proximal processes between individuals (Bronfenbrenner &
Morris, 1998, 2006). Limitations in proximal processes not only affect the development of the
individual but the development of individuals with whom he or she has interaction—limiting
both developmental influences and developmental outcomes (Bronfenbrenner, 1995;
Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006). This study of mothers’ technology decisions was needed
to understand if a mother’s technology decisions reflect generative or disruptive force
characteristics in her own development and in development interactions with her preschool child.
Bronfenbrenner and Morris (1998, 2006) described a second key person characteristic
that affects proximal processes: demand characteristics involve the social engagement of an
individual. Demand characteristics can involve personal attractiveness and personality
(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Reminiscent of the stages of personality development
described in psychoanalytic theory and critiqued by Bronfenbrenner (1951), bioecological theory
(Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993, 1994) recognizes Freud’s (1900, 1912, 1923, 1933) description
of a system of the unconscious that influences thinking, motivation, and behavior. Current
Freudian interpretations describe an active interplay “between conscious and unconscious locales
of the mind” (Tauber, 2013, p. 231) that connect to bioecological understandings of demand
characteristics in regard to an individual’s conscious and unconscious self-appraisal based on
59
perceived social appraisal. A mother may consciously or unconsciously engage in self-appraisal
as she uses social networking sites to connect with others and find support and “appraisal
assistance” (Valtchanov, Parry, Glover, & Mulcahy, 2014, p. 187) in her role as mother. This
study of a mother’s technology decisions was necessary to explore whether social appraisal
affected a mother’s engagement and sense of belonging in technology-influenced social
environments.
The last person characteristics that affect proximal processes are resource characteristics
(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006). Resource characteristics can enhance an individual’s
ability to participate in proximal processes through “ability, knowledge, skill, and experience”
(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006, p. 812) or limit an individual’s ability to engage in proximal
processes due to socioeconomic factors or physical impairments.
A mother may have grown up with economic and technology limitations that affected her
resource characteristics, but she may have been like youth today from various racial and
socioeconomic backgrounds who find ways to access the Internet (Watkins, 2010). A study of
African American youth noted a preference to access the Internet through Smartphones (Tynes &
Mitchell, 2014). African American children and youth engage in extensive media and technology
use, more than white children and youth (Rideout et al., 2010; Rideout, Lauricella, & Wartella,
2011). Research of white and Latino children ages 4-11 found that “recreational computer use
for Latino children was at or above that of white children, except when comparing children that
had parents with at least a college education” (van Meijgaard, Shi, & Simon, 2013, p. 440).
Correlation between higher parental education attainment and constraints on children’s excessive
computer use led study researchers to warn of excessive recreational computer use among Latino
children and youth because of lower parental education attainment (van Meijgaard et al., 2013).
60
These findings underscore the importance of this study to explain the technology decision
process of mothers from differing socioeconomic, race, and education backgrounds thereby
broadening understandings of how a mother’s growing up experiences with technology may
perpetuate or constrain her child’s computer use and resource characteristics in proximal
processes.
Bioecological Context Characteristics and Technology Decisions. Bronfenbrenner’s
interconnected ecological systems (1974, 1976, 1978) situate the influences of human experience
in various environments. These four systems transfer to Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory
(Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993, 1994) to explain context in the Process-Person-Context-Time
(PPCT) model (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). The conceptual framework for this study
investigating the technology decision process mothers use when making technology decisions for
their preschool age children in the home environment relates to the context systems of the PPCT
model regarding proximal processes and technology decisions.
Technology macrosystems of national interest. Each nation-specific cultural system is a
macrosystem defined by its ideology and policy making (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). These national
ideologies may affect the technology decisions a mother makes for her child. As a macrosystem,
nations maintain a distinctive cultural status by using technology to preserve national identity
beginning with parents and children. Denmark, Norway, and Finland are at the forefront of this
trend. Nordic nations fear children’s unconstrained access to social networking sites will
encourage children to “form a global culture exclusive of their parents” (Johanson, 2010, p. 389).
These countries support cultural programs that encourage parents to control their children’s
technology use of websites and communication forums within Nordic nations (Johanson, 2010).
61
An American mother may receive cultural messages that nations maintain global status
by using technology to strengthen national economic interests (Brynjolfsson & Saunders, 2010).
The productivity of the US economy can be attributed in part to ICT producers and businesses
with high ICT use (Dimelis & Papaioannou, 2011). Germany is another example of a robust
economy built on technological advance and education. German schools encourage students to
overcome limitations of socioeconomic status through successful interactions with technology
(Lebens et al., 2009). The German government prompts teachers to countermand negative peer
and family influences and help students increase their economic prospects through technology
use (Lebens et al., 2009, p. 265). International attention on children’s use of technology at home
(Johanson, 2010) and at school (Lebens et al., 2009) demonstrates the limited understandings of
parents’ perceived role in preserving national identity through technology modeling and
interaction with their children at home. Shaikh et al. (2012) noted,
Governments, parents and teachers need to act as facilitators and mediators in the process
of adoption and shaping of media culture rather than either acting as passive onlookers or
active controllers. And for doing so they need to be aware of the importance of their role,
alert to technological developments and very sensitive to the needs and situations of
young people. (p. 5)
This study of a mother’s technology decisions was needed to understand how a mother may
perceive her role in increasing her child’s economic prospects in a global economy macrosystem
through maternal technology influence in the home. Additional influence exists through
increased technology use in the exosystem of schools.
Technology exosystems of education influence. One exosystem of technology influence
is increased use of technology in schools to promote learning. Mothers may have been indirectly
62
influenced by this exosystem as a student and now as a parent to use technology to aid learning.
Schools offer students in-class use of technology such as tablet computers to support their
knowledge building and social learning in the classroom (Li et al., 2010). Using the Internet,
teacher and student learning collaborations go beyond information transfer to a real-time online
concept collaboration in subjects like math (Cicconi, 2014). Tablet computers (Couse & Chen,
2010; Li et al., 2010), laptops (Schnellert & Keengwe, 2012), and e-books (Ko et al., 2011; Jones
& Brown, 2011; Korat, 2010; Wright et al., 2013) are popular technology options schools and
teachers use to accomplish educational objectives in the classroom.
Within the broad proximal exosystem of schools promoting learning with technology,
reading behavior and engagement are a core objective in school curriculum. As a student, a
mother may have learned to read or may have improved her reading skills using technology.
Teachers encourage learning through reading engagement and use technology such as Digital
Story Telling (DST) to support children’s reading and entertainment through visual and audio
cues, direct user page manipulation, and immediate feedback (Abdul Mutalib, Aziz, & Amilah
Shaffiei, 2011, p. 24). Studies of children’s reading behaviors with e-readers suggest greater eye
fixation (Siegenthaler et al., 2011), reading engagement (Moody et al., 2010), and word learning
(Korat, 2010). However, a critical review of research on CD-ROM storybooks offered mixed
results due to the functionality of interactive story books, the reader’s prior knowledge, and the
individualized experience of each reader with the interactive elements of the book (Ertem, 2011,
p. 36). Whether it is use of the Internet, CD-ROM, DST, or tablet computers, teachers try to
enhance the reading and learning process. Because “educational technology is an engine for
development” (Gebremeskel, Kebede, & Chai, 2015, p. 301), it was important for this study of
mothers’ technology decisions to determine if mothers of preschool age children may proximally
63
receive social messages from schools through media or friends and try to mimic teachers’ use of
technology to help their children learn.
Mesosystem and microsystem. Even though this study explored the decision process
mothers use when making technology decisions for their preschool age children in the home
microsystem, school mesosystems and the associative microsystem interactions of students’
technology decisions provide important context for understanding associative environments that
may influence the technology decision process mothers make for their preschool age children in
the home microsystem. School specific mesosystems such as higher education, secondary,
elementary, and preschool education provide the proximal contexts for understanding how a
mother was influenced as a student by school technology use to develop a personal microsystem
of technology use.
Higher education student’s associative technology microsystem. If a mother has attended
or currently attends college, she may have been influenced by the technology mesosystems of
higher education in something as basic as what online resources the library offered. In the higher
education mesosystem, academic libraries attempt to provide increased digital resources that
meet users’ needs for ease of online access and subject coverage (Vasileiou, Hartley, & Rowley,
2012). Yet, a literature review of current research on college academic reading revealed that
students can shy away from online academic reading for many reasons including text
organization and cognitive overload (Sandberg, 2011, p. 96). Students report that they use ebooks for leisure reading while preferring traditional text for academic reading (Foasberg, 2011).
This personal microsystem of technology use and self-regulation reflects what college students
believe about the purposes of technology and Internet use (Chiu, Liang, & Tsai, 2013). Believing
that Internet use can assist them academically, college students use the Internet for web-based
64
learning (Khidzir, Daud, & Ibrahim, 2015) and academic help seeking (Cheng & Tsai, 2011).
This research connects college students’ perceptions of self-efficacy in Internet academic help
seeking to a pattern of increased online experience, confidence, and preference (Cheng & Tsai,
2011, p. 154). This personal microsystem of online experience and purpose-driven Internet use
goes beyond academic technology use to social interactions.
Within the mesosystem of higher education, social media may have been (depending on
her age) part of a mother’s microsystem of college student online interactions and experiences.
Eighty-two percent of college students check Facebook several times a day (Quan-Haase &
Young, 2010). Researchers note that purpose and use are important elements in determining
whether college students’ participation in social media promotes well-being (Mastrodicasa &
Metellus, 2013). Some students use social media to help them in the adjustment to college life
(DeAndrea, Ellison, LaRose, Steinfield, & Fiore, 2012). Others use social media to bolster their
self-esteem through selective personal disclosures consistent with their online identity (Jiang,
Bazarova, & Hancock, 2011). Social media such as Twitter give college students a “digital
citizenship” actively “crafting a positive public persona that allows them to gain social capital
and bridge networks with others through online conversation” (Acosta, 2014, p. 16). It was
unclear whether this purposeful identity building in college could be linked to the technology
decision process of college educated mothers of preschool age children. Students enter the
college mesosystem with a personal microsystem of technology use built from significant and
purposeful technology use as secondary and elementary students.
Secondary and elementary students’ associative technology microsystems. When a
mother was in high school she may have had many types of technology and used it for extended
periods of time. Within the secondary mesosystem, high school students’ technology
65
microsystem is characterized by a wide range of technology use for significant periods of time,
beyond 53 hours a week (Rideout et al., 2010). Research of high school students’ extensive
social media use highlights differences in student learning perspectives from that of schools:
Students depend on social media in their personal lives, both in and out of school. Leisure
and social connection are the top reasons for using social media. Educational uses by
teachers for classroom teaching and learning are sporadic, while uses by students on their
own for learning purposes seem to be abundant but also incidental and informal. (Mao,
2014, p. 221)
In contrast to the formal technology-mediated learning of schools, high school students value
informal, technology-mediated social learning over extended periods of time (Mao, 2014). High
school students’ technology preference for informal, social learning may reflect early
experiences in the home and the process of technology decision-making of their mothers. It is
known that high school students’ microsystem preference for extended and informal technology
use reflects technology experiences associated with the mesosystems of middle and elementary
school.
As an elementary or middle school student, a mother may have learned to adapt to new
technology and value its usability. Research shows students adapt quickly and begin using new
software to complete assigned tasks when faced with unfamiliar technology in school (Webber,
2012). To better understand how students accept and use technology, one study used a modified
version of TAM to examine junior high school students’ perceptions of technology, noting the
importance of user identification with technology (Yu, K. et al., 2012). Elementary and middle
school students can identify with and use technology so much that technology addictions can
form—middle school students more so than elementary students (Ko et al., 2005; Li et al., 2014).
66
While research of elementary students indicated grade level, gender, social problems, and
depression can be predictors of Internet overuse and addiction (Lan, & Lee, 2013), the issue of
technology use for adolescents is more complex. A study of both adolescents’ and their parents’
online behavior indicated both knowingly engage in risky online behaviors including
communication with strangers and online harassment (Dowdell, 2013). A mother’s overuse of
technology or personal decisions to engage in risky online behaviors may influence her
technology decisions for others. Mothers may perceive social messages from media, friends, or
faith communities that positively or negatively influence their personal use and influence their
child’s technology use in preschool and on into elementary and middle school.
Preschool students’ associative technology microsystems. In preschool, teachers make
technology available to students to promote learning dispositions, enhance operational skills, and
expand children’s knowledge (Plowman et al., 2010, p. 99). Preschool students show increased
interest, persistence, and ability when using a tablet computer to draw (Couse & Chen, 2010). In
another study, preschool age children demonstrated greater communicative participation and
reading engagement using electronic storybooks (Moody, et al., 2010). While young children can
associate play with learning and technology use, teachers tend to uphold education norms by
encouraging children to see technology primarily as a learning tool (Ntuli & Kyei-Blankson,
2012).
A mother who associates technology as a tool for learning or play may influence her
child to think similarly—research indicates children have definite ideas related to technology
formed from diverse technology experiences in the home (Mawson, 2010) microsystem. A
mother’s technology decisions may be the reason research indicates that families have a wider
range of technology for children to use than schools (Plowman et al., 2010). When children talk
67
about technology, their responses tend to emphasize products (Mawson, 2010) or activities like
social networking with family and friends, watching movies or videos on YouTube, or gaming
(Jewitt & Parashar, 2011). Further research about preschoolers indicates they use computers and
television mostly for entertainment (Natsiopoulou & Bletsou, 2011). For some children,
computers are the entertainment media of choice topping television and books (Natsiopoulou &
Bletsou, 2011, p. 102). Consequently, researchers advocate parents set limits on computer use
and television watching, and use technology with their children to model appropriate and
selective technology use in a “media-saturated environment” (Natsiopoulou & Bletsou, 2011, p.
103). Research does not indicate how preschool mothers’ technology decisions may meet this
mandate beyond informal modeling.
Bioecological Time Characteristics and Technology Decisions. Mothers’ technology
decisions for themselves and their preschool age children can be examined through the
representations of time in the PPCT model. Macrotime describes the generational changes in a
society’s expectations (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006, p. 796). A modern mother may not give
her child a cassette tape or a pager because of the changing generational time context of
technology decisions. This study of mothers’ technology decisions was needed to understand
how younger and older mothers differ in their technology decision process based on the types of
technology they grew up with, when they first used a computer, and what they think about
technology now.
Mesotime identifies routine activities of interactions that consistently occur over days and
weeks (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006). When a mother buys her child a LeapPad so that
he or she can play education games after naptime that is a proximal interaction that produces
technology decisions that occur daily and weekly in mesotime. Microtime represents the
68
proximal processes that occur during a specific action or interaction (Bronfenbrenner & Morris
1998, 2006; Tudge et al., 2009). When a mother gives her fussing child an iPad to play a game
while traveling in the car, that proximal interaction process involves a technology decision made
in microtime. This study of mothers’ technology decisions contextualized mothers’ perceptions
of how their short term and long term technology decisions affect their development and that of
their children in the home environment.
The PPCT model explores the proximal processes that influence human development
over a lifetime (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006). The individual, social, and
environmental factors related to technology decisions that influence national interest, teachers,
students, parents, and mothers were conceptually examined in relation to the PPCT model. While
the PPCT model does not explain how mothers accept technology or make technology decisions
for their children, the model provides insight into the proximal interactions that may influence
mothers’ formations of technology preferences and technology decisions for themselves and for
their children.
Related Literature
The conceptual framework describes how the PPCT model explains the proximal
processes that influence an individual’s development over a lifetime and how the UTAUT model
identifies the determinants and moderators of an individual’s technology intention and use.
Theoretically, neither model explains how an individual forms technology preferences or makes
technology decisions for another. The related literature connects theoretical understandings about
the UTAUT and PPCT models to empirical literature about individual technology preferences,
teachers’ decision-making, and the technology decisions that occur outside and inside the home
69
environment. Understanding how the UTAUT model can be related to technology preferences
begins with research about the MTP model.
Technology Preference: The MTP Model
Conceptualized as a theoretical extension of TAM, the Model of Technology Preference
(MTP; Muthitcharoen et al., 2011, p. 210) identifies how technology intention is influenced by
two types of technology preferences: attitude-based (an individual using their general feelings to
develop a preference) and attribute-based (an individual’s detailed comparison of technology
alternatives based on attribute) (Muthitcharoen et al., 2011). Using the version of TAM that
included attitude as a determinant of technology intention (Davis et al., 1989), MTP explains
how implicit and explicit choice form technology preferences (Muthitcharoen et al., 2011, p.
213). An implicit technology choice is use or non-use of some form of technology (Dabholkar,
1994). A mother’s choice to turn on the TV is an implicit choice. Both TAM and UTAUT
indirectly conceptualize implicit choice through factors that determine and moderate whether an
individual will use a form of technology or not. For example, both TAM and UTAUT would
account for a mother’s implicit choice to use a smartphone or not, but neither TAM nor UTAUT
would explain a mother’s explicit technology choice of an iPhone 6 rather than a Google Nexus
6. An explicit technology choice is one that compares alternatives and chooses one as preferable
to the others (Muthitcharoen et al., 2011, p. 214). Thus, a technology preference is an implicit or
explicit choice that represents an individual’s perception of best (Muthitcharoen et al., 2011, p.
209).
The MTP model explores the antecedents of technology intention and extends TAM and
UTAUT by explaining how individuals “use preference evaluation prior to the decision-making
process of whether to adopt certain systems at the explicit level. The comparison of alternatives
70
is made for each attribute, and the decision is based on the summation of all aspects” (Jaafar et
al., 2014, p. 703). Thus, MTP theorizes that individuals exercise explicit choice in forming
attribute-based preferences that inform their attitude-based technology preference and determine
their technology intention. Research describes the influence of technology preferences on
technology intention regarding social media and information-seeking (Naftel et al., 2013) and
age-related use of communication technologies (Weinberg, Guarino, Savoy, Horton, & Reed,
2012). This study of mothers’ technology decisions was needed to understand how mothers form
attribute and attitude-based technology preferences that inform their technology decision-making
for themselves and for their children.
The marketing context and the limited research (Jaafar et al., 2014; Muthitcharoen et al.,
2011) validating the MTP model made it unsuitable as a conceptual foundation for this study.
However, researchers using MTP believe it can be customized for other contexts and that use of
MTP to explain technology preference and intention in non-work environments could identify
stronger determinant relationships between preference and intention (Jaafar et al., 2014;
Muthitcharoen et al., 2011). MTP calls attention to technology preferences as an underresearched component of technology intention (Jaafar et al., 2014; Muthitcharoen et al., 2011)
and confirms the need for additional research into how technology beliefs and intentions evolve
over time (before, during, and after the adoption of a technology; Kaba, & Touré, 2014) and the
needed expansion of UTAUT (Venkatesh, 2006) to include variables that explain how
technology preferences inform the determinants of technology intention and use. Neither MTP
nor UTAUT explain how an individual forms technology preferences that inform the technology
decisions they make for another. However, pedagogical literature describes how teachers
71
integrate technology into student learning by making technology decisions for themselves and
for their students using the TPACK model.
Technology Integration: The TPACK Model
Teachers are increasingly ICT literate and use technology in the classroom to increase
student motivation and learning (Gialamas & Nikolopoulou, 2010). Teachers who used
technology as college students bring their ICT knowledge and perceptions to their classrooms
(Al-Barakat & Bataineh, 2011; Gialamas & Nikolopoulou, 2010). However, not all teachers
show a predisposition to increased ICT use in the classroom in part because some are unsure how
to integrate it into their subject (Morley, 2011) or teaching style (Padron, Waxman, Lee, Lin, &
Michko, 2010; Wikan & Molster, 2011). Thus, the TPACK framework (Mishra & Koehler,
2006) offers teachers a helpful guide to select technology for themselves and for students to
support learning in the classroom (Jamieson-Proctor et al., 2013; Matherson, Wilson, & Wright,
2014). The framework is used with pre-service (Kabakci Yurdakul, & Coklar, 2014; Lu, 2014;
Maeng, Mulvey, Smetana, & Bell, 2013) and in-service (Hwee, Chai, & Ching-Chung, 2014;
Matherson et al., 2014) teachers to merge their content knowledge (CK), pedagogical knowledge
(PK), and technological knowledge (TK) to form an integrated technological pedagogical content
knowledge (TPACK or “Total PACKage”; Thompson & Mishra, 2007, p. 38). The framework
helps teachers across grade levels (Doering et al., 2014) and disciplines (Hong & Stonier, 2014)
pedagogically choose what the best technology is for themselves and for their students.
TPACK is not a formal theory (Kimmons, 2015): it provides a framework for
conceptualizing “what is important and what is not [important] in any discussions of teacher
knowledge surrounding using technology for teaching subject matter” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006,
p. 1046). TPACK describes the “intersection and interplay” (Jamieson-Proctor et al., 2013, p. 27)
72
between a teacher’s content knowledge, pedagogy, and technology use and provides “an
analytical lens with which to look at the instructional decisions teachers make” (Graham, Borup,
& Smith, 2012, p. 3). Thus, teachers make implicit (use or non-use) and explicit (choice amid
alternatives) technology choices in their professional use of technology to present instructional
concepts to their students (Brantley-Dias & Ertmer, 2014). Also, teachers make implicit and
explicit technology choices to integrate technology in student learning (Graham et al., 2012).
These pedagogical and subject matter technology decisions teachers make for themselves and for
their students in the classroom have little connection to the technology decisions mothers make
for themselves and their children in the home. The TPACK framework is for teacher educators in
a classroom setting (Abbitt, 2011; Archambault, & Barnett, 2010) making it not a good
theoretical fit for this study of mothers’ technology decisions in a home setting. This underscored
the need to understand how mothers with varying levels of ICT literacy may mimic teachers in
recognizing the need to include technology use into their parenting routine to assist in their
child’s learning in the home environment. Understanding the factors that affect a mother’s
technology decisions begins with identifying the technology influences she may receive outside
the home.
Technology Influences Outside the Home
Bronfenbrenner’s desire to study human development to inform public policies that
supported positive developmental outcomes in children and families (Bronfenbrenner 1973,
1974, 1975, 1979, 1994, 1995; Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000;
Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006) led him to place special emphasis on the microsystem of
the home. In like manner, this study was limited to exploring the technology decision process
mothers use when making technology decisions for their preschool age children in the home
73
environment. The empirical literature about technology influences outside the home regarding
race, employment, and economic status that may influence a mothers’ technology decisions for
herself and for her preschool age child are best examined conceptually through proximal
processes (PPCT model) and determinants of technology intention and use (UTAUT model).
Mothers may be influenced by macrosystem or exosystem (context characteristics, PPCT
model; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006) messages about race transmitted through
technology-mediated social interactions. Research identifies the role of technology in forming
racial perceptions: “Race has itself become a digital medium, a distinctive set of informatic
codes, networked mediated narratives, maps, images, and visualizations that index identity”
(Nakamura & Chow-White, 2011, p. 5). How a mother may index TV or Internet-mediated
messages about race in the development of her own person characteristics (PPCT model;
Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006) relates to Erikson’s (1950, 1963,1968; Erikson &
Erikson, 1997; Erikson, Paul, Heider, & Gardner, 1959) view of personality development
through eight stages of psychosocial crises that build virtues such as hope, will, purpose, and
competence. Reminiscent of Bronfenbrenner’s (1974, 1976, 1978, 1979) view of human
development through proximal interaction, Erikson and Erikson (1997) noted, “We live and
move and share the earth with one another. Without contact there is no growth” (p. 8).
Psychosocial crises can alter how a mother perceives race through her past growing up
experiences (Brown & Bigler, 2005; McKown & Weinstein, 2003; Van Ausdale & Feagin, 2001)
and current social interactions mediated by the TV (Aldama, 2013; Jones, 2014) or Internet
(Bigelow, 2006; Gajjala, 2011). Thus, this study of mothers’ technology decisions was needed to
understand mothers’ perspectives of how technology influences their perception of race and what
74
affect they believe their technology decisions for their children will have on their children’s
perception of race.
Mothers’ technology preferences, intention, or use may be influenced by her employment
and job tasks. The technology experiences parents have at work become “household cultural
capital” (Hollingworth et al., 2011, p. 358) in their parenting technology practices. A mother
may exhibit leadership qualities in her job and be attuned to new technologies in the workplace
(VanderPal, 2014) that she learns from and applies to other contexts (Dance & Service, 2013).
Using technology to multitask on the job (Hall, 2011) may become part of a mother’s
mesosystem social interactions away from the job. Checking emails as soon as they arrive in the
inbox or using social media to take a break from difficult work tasks (Dance & Service, 2013)
may transfer from a mother’s employment to other settings such as the home environment. This
study of mothers’ technology decisions was needed to understand how working mothers may
form technology preferences from their job that transfer to their technology decisions for
themselves and for their children in the home environment.
A mother’s socioeconomic status (SES) may influence her formation of technology
preferences and her technology intention and use. Research (DeHaan, 2004; Warf, 2013)
describes the role of SES on technology use:
. . . class remains an important dimension of the US digital divide, as reflected in
different internet access rates by educational level and household income. Educational
level remains a major facet of who has access and uses the internet and who does not.
Vast numbers of people – disproportionately minorities, the under-educated, those
earning low incomes and employed in the lowest rungs of the service sector – have
relatively little opportunity to access the internet. To them, who form one quarter of the
75
national populace, cyberspace appears as some nebulous and dimly perceived planet far
beyond their reach. (Warf, 2013, p. 13)
The socioeconomic digital divide of access has been somewhat alleviated by schools and
libraries offering computer and Internet access (Warf, 2013). However, if a mother must rely on
public computers or Internet access because she has no Smartphone or personal computer this
will affect her opportunity to engage in lengthy, varied, or private online social interactions
(Pearce & Rice, 2013), thus affecting her communication competence (Lee, Park, & Hwang,
2015) and her resource characteristics (person characteristics, PPCT model; Bronfenbrenner &
Morris, 1998, 2006) in proximal processes. Research describes these technology-mediated social
interactions as digital fluency (Wang, Myers, & Sundaram, 2013). Digital fluency is “the ability
to reformulate knowledge and produce information to express oneself creatively and
appropriately in a digital environment” (Wang et al., 2013 p. 409). This study of mothers’
technology decisions was of value because it explored the technology decision process of
mothers from various economic backgrounds: how they perceive social or financial status affects
technology use and how they view technology in terms of their children’s future.
A mother’s socioeconomic status may influence how she values her child’s technology
use. Low socioeconomic status limits parents’ material ability to facilitate their children’s use of
technology (Hollingworth et al., 2011; North, Snyder, & Bulfin, 2008). However, families of
varying income levels both value technology in their personal life and encourage it in their
children’s life as necessary for the future (Plowman et al., 2010, p. 110).
The technology mothers give children to use outside the home (context characteristics,
PPCT model; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998) influences their peer image (social influences,
UTAUT model; Venkatesh et al., 2003). Technology facilitates social engagement (Kim, Y.,
76
Kim, D. & Wachter, 2013), and children use experiences and objects associated with consumer
culture to achieve social visibility (Pugh, 2011, p. 2). A three-year ethnographic study of three
schools and 54 families investigating peer group, home life, and school setting found children
use group conversations about new technology to generate a sense of belonging to the group;
some by claiming they own an object and others by concealing their lack of the object (Pugh,
2011). Children “appeared to be reaching to be part of something, a larger group they wanted to
join” (Pugh, 2011, p. 8). Bowlby’s (1969, 1972, 1980, 1982) attachment theory describes this
tendency for children to choose desirable and proximate attachments that promote a feeling of
security (Bowlby, 1988). Recent research of attachment styles confirms that attachments can be
modified and that “change in attachment can be conceptualized as a proximal outcome” (Levy,
Ellison, Scott, & Bernecker, 2011, p. 201). This study of mothers’ technology decisions was
important to understand if mothers perceived the social influence of technology on their
children’s peer image.
The empirical literature describes technology influences outside the home regarding race,
employment, and economic status that may influence mothers’ technology decisions for
themselves and for their preschool age children. Inside the home environment, mothers make
technology decisions that reflect their technology perceptions, intention and use. From
perceptions of technology capability (Rothbaum, Martland, & Jannsen, 2008), mothers influence
their children’s technology intentions and use inside the home.
Technology Decisions Inside the Home
Parents believe technology can support (performance expectancy, UTAUT model;
Venkatesh et al., 2003) their parenting (Bartholomew et al., 2012; Daneback & Plantin, 2008;
Nystrom & Ohrling, 2006, 2008). New parents find support from other parents and information
77
from health care professionals through web-based technologies (Nystrom & Ohrling, 2006,
2008). Parents value web-based products and services (Williams & Page, 2011), and web-based
information and social support (Bartholomew et al., 2012; Daneback & Plantin, 2008). Therefore
an increasing number of websites offer parents social forums, categorized information, and an
array of commercial products (Carter, 2007). How parents use technology and the attitudes they
form relate to their perceived comfort and positive feeling toward technology (Walker, Dworkin,
& Connell, 2011).
Mothers’ technology perceptions, intentions, and use. Mothers have varied
perceptions and attitudes (performance expectancy, UTAUT model; Venkatesh et al., 2003)
about their online chat experiences (Madge & O’Connor, 2006), online recreation (Venkatraman,
2012), and the experience and voluntariness of their Facebook use (Bartholomew et al., 2012).
Positive voluntary technology use experiences include mothers-to-be preparing for the birthing
process through electronic media (Internet sites, videos, mobile phones; Fleming et al., 2014).
Exploration of this trend reveals:
During pregnancy, mothers-to-be download apps for exercise monitoring and preparation
for labour and birth. When labour begins, or if a caesarean birth is planned, the date and
time are posted on the network(s) and, during labour, tweets, emails and texts keep
everyone informed. When the midwife or doctor pronounces a statement of progress on
the labour, this becomes a social media communication for global access. (Sinclair, 2013,
p. 3)
Research of new mothers using Facebook to stay connected with friends and family reported
greater role satisfaction (performance expectancy, UTAUT model; Venkatesh et al., 2003) but
also elevated levels of parenting stress related to managing and updating Facebook content
78
(Bartholomew et al., 2012, p. 463). Some mothers viewed their online experiences as a “treat”
(Venkatraman, 2012, p. 5), a means of escape and play. Increased blogging predicted feelings of
maternal well-being and connectedness with others (McDaniel, Coyne, & Holmes, 2012).
Mothers reported their online chat experiences produced both feelings of support and
empowerment through the variety of information and experience sharing (person characteristics,
PPCT model; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006), but also feelings of constraint and gender
role stereotyping (Madge & O’Connor, 2006).
One of the ways mothers use technology for support (performance expectancy, UTAUT
model; Venkatesh et al., 2003) is using social networking sites to give and glean information
(Harpham et al., 2002; Putnam, 2000) and to connect to friends and family (Lin 2001; McDaniel
et al., 2012). Mothers frequent use of social networking sites can “build and bond” social capital
(Jang & Dworkin, 2014). Bonding and bridging social capital (Gittell & Vidal, 1998; Jang &
Dworkin, 2014; Putnam, 2000) describes social interactions (person characteristics, PPCT
model; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006)—bonding by information sharing with close
friends and family (Lin 2001), and bridging by information seeking through acquaintances
(Harpham et al., 2002; Putnam, 2000). These building and bonding behaviors were of particular
interest to this study of mothers’ technology decisions because there is conflicting literature
about the frequency of younger mothers using social networking (Bartholomew et al., 2012;
Jang, & Dworkin, 2014) and the frequency of older mothers using social networking (Madden,
Cortesi, Gasser, Lenhart, & Duggan, 2012). This study of mothers’ technology decisions was
needed to understand whether older or younger mothers use social networking more for
information and/or social support as they develop their own person characteristics through
technology-mediated interactions.
79
Developmental assistive technologies help (performance expectancy, UTAUT model;
Venkatesh et al., 2003) mothers of children with disabilities promote their child’s development.
Children with autism spectrum disorders receive language and social development support from
computer-assisted technologies (Allsop, Gallagher, Holt, Bhakta, & Wilkie, 2011; Guldberg,
Porayska-Pomsta, Good, & Keay-Bright, 2010) such as computerized visual feedback and
keyboard-controlled audio-visual displays (Ploog, Scharf, Nelson, & Brooks, 2013). Children
with motor disabilities can use augmentative manipulation systems (such as robots) to
demonstrate and develop their cognitive skills (Cook, Adams, Encarnacao, & Alvarez, 2012).
Robot-aided neuro-rehabilitation provides children with cerebral palsy data-driven interactive
and intensive sensorimotor therapy (Aharonson & Krebs, 2012). Assistive technologies help
parents enhance the resource characteristics (PPCT model; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998,
2006) of children with disabilities as they take the next step in their motor learning (Aharonson
& Krebs, 2012; Cook et al., 2012; Krebs et al., 2012) and language and social development
(Ploog et al., 2013).
Mothers make personal technology decisions to use technology to support (performance
expectancy, UTAUT model; Venkatesh et al., 2003) their mothering. Mothers’ varied technology
perceptions (Bartholomew et al., 2012; Madge & O’Connor, 2006; Venkatraman, 2012) and use
(Harpham et al., 2002; Lin 2001; McDaniel et al., 2012; Putnam, 2000) made this study of
mothers’ technology decisions vital to understand how a mother forms technology preferences
and how her preferences inform her personal technology decisions and those made for her child.
Mothers influence how children use technology for learning, playing, and socializing.
Mothers’ influences on their children’s technology intention and use. Mothers
influence their children’s perception of performance expectancy (UTAUT model; Venkatesh et
80
al., 2003) for learning with technology. Whether it is the choice of electronic books (Moody et
al., 2010) or using the Internet (Lee & Chae, 2007), children develop ideas about technology
from what they experience in the home (Jewitt & Parashar, 2011; Natsiopoulou & Bletsou,
2011). Both parents and children use technology for specific purposes such as Internet research
of various topics (Herold, 2011) and for educative purposes (Grant, 2011; Hollingworth,
Mansaray, Allen, & Rose, 2011; Jewitt, & Parashar, 2011; Korat, & Or, 2010; Plowman et al.,
2010; Plowman et al., 2011; van Steensel, McElvany, Kurvers, & Herppich, 2011). Technology
has made it easier for parents to facilitate learning (Selwyn, Banaji, Hadjithoma-Garstka, &
Clark, 2011), particularly technology-mediated reading skills improvement in the home. Often
the first educational interventions in a child’s life are parent/child read alouds (Barnyak, 2011).
Parents may choose print books over e-books while children display mixed feelings: in a pilot
study of three families, three out of the six children preferred electronic books (Maynard, 2010,
p. 245). The quantity and quality of technology-mediated parent-to-child directed speech can
improve children’s vocabulary development (Rowe, 2012). Early literacy development may be
affected by different mother-child interactions using print or electronic books (Korat & Or,
2010). One way a mother can facilitate her child’s literacy and technology use is using Skype for
a relative to read a story to the child or for the child to read the story to the relative (Herold,
2011, p. 46). This study of mothers’ technology decisions was important to understand mothers’
perceptions of how they influenced their children’s learning through technology use.
Mothers may influence a child’s perception of effort expectancy (UTAUT model;
Venkatesh et al., 2003) through informal technology modeling. Research of preschool families
indicates informal usage modeling is occurring in the home microsystem in which a child
possesses an awareness of the functionality of the item without knowing how to operate it
81
(Plowman et al., 2011). Family ownership of technology does not mean a child has access to it or
knows how to use it without parental assistance (Plowman et al., 2011, p. 368). Even when there
is a high level of technology present in the home, children may not choose to use it even when
parents encourage it (Plowman et al., 2010, p. 101). This study of mothers’ technology decisions
explored how mothers’ perceive they encourage their children’s technology use by their informal
technology modeling.
Mothers provide facilitating conditions (UTAUT model; Venkatesh et al., 2003) for their
children’s electronic play. Computer use provides a type of structured play that mothers perceive
as an intellectual benefit to their children (Fisher, Hirsh-Pasek, Golinkoff, & Gryfe, 2008)—a
perception influenced by advertising that targets parents (Gardner, Golinkoff, Hirsh-Pasek,
Heiney-Gonzalez, 2012). Among preschoolers, using electronic toys, visiting websites for
children, gaming, television and DVD watching are popular home technology activities
(Plowman et al., 2011, p. 368). Computer usage tends to be longer for boys than for girls (Harris,
Straker, & Pollock, 2013, p.70). Recognizing that computer use increases as a child gets older
(Harris et al., 2013) and that developmental harm can occur if children access social or gaming
interactions (Teng, Fan-Chen, Chen, & Wu, 2012) that are not appropriate, Membership
Categorization Devices (MCDs) are becoming a popular way for regulating what age-appropriate
interactions children have with games and other children (Schank, 2012). This study of a
mother’s technology choices was necessary to understand how mothers’ technology decisions
facilitate and limit their children’s technology use.
Mothers may not fully realize the social influences (UTAUT model; Venkatesh et al.,
2003) of technology on their children. Research indicates social media draws children and youth
because it gives them the ability to test and manage their own abilities and identities (Sánchez-
82
Navarro & Aranda, 2013, p. 74). The new technology young people use is “fundamentally bound
up with their own identity” (Furlong, 2012, p. 59). This identification can place children and
adolescents who use social media at risk for cyberbullying (Smith, 2012) and depression
(Völlink, Bolman, Dehue, & Jacobs, 2013; Wang, Nansel, & Iannotti, 2011) making the scrutiny
of parents and/or the intervention of teachers and healthcare professionals necessary (Ackers,
2012; Le Heuzey, 2012).
Mothers of older children express concern about their children’s use of social
technologies but differ in control of their child’s access because they lack technology expertise
and differ in their perception of the value of social media from that of their children (Fletcher &
Blair, 2014a). Youth rely on social media contact with their peers that can bypass
communication with their parents (Mesch, 2012). Parents who expect increased communication
through digital means may worry about their adolescent’s safety or wonder about their activities
when the adolescent communicates infrequently (Weisskirch, 2011). This and other technology
related social scenarios (time spent with technology, websites visited) require parents and
adolescents to evaluate the process (actions and responses) and structure (roles and
responsibilities) of their relationship (Hertlein, 2012). Research further explores maternal
authority in the context of parental mediation (monitoring and controlling) adolescents online
experiences (Fletcher & Blair, 2014b; Vaterlaus et al., 2014) but does not indicate how a mother
makes monitoring and controlling technology decisions for a preschool age child—decisions
which may affect her maternal authority when the child is older. This study of mothers’
technology decisions explored the varied technology experiences of mothers and how their
perceptions of technology influence on their children affected their monitoring and control of
their children’s technology experiences.
83
Summary
Parents influence their children’s development (Plowman et al., 2011; Tu et al., 2013)
and well-being (Swindle et al., 2014; Wonsun et al., 2012) by the technology decisions they
make. As a primary caregiver and decision maker (Jang et al., 2015), mothers can support their
children’s development (Song et al., 2014) through their involvement (Brown et al., 2011) and
interactions with their child. Exploring the technology decisions mothers make for their
preschool age children in the home environment informs American mothers in their decisionmaking and ultimately promotes the well-being and development of their children
(Bronfenbrenner 1994, 1995b, 2000, 2001; Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Bronfenbrenner &
Evans, 2000; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006).
The UTAUT and PPCT models provided the best conceptual framework to explore
mothers’ technology decisions. The conceptual framework described the factors that determine
and moderate an individual’s technology intention and use expressed in the UTAUT model and
the proximal processes that influence an individual’s development over a lifetime identified in
the PPCT model. The individual, social, and environmental factors related to technology
decisions that influence national interest, teachers, students, parents, and mothers were
conceptually examined in relation to the PPCT model. Theoretically, neither model explained
how an individual forms technology preferences or makes technology decisions for another.
Related literature connected theoretical understandings about the UTAUT and PPCT
models to empirical literature about the MTP model and individual technology preferences, the
TPACK framework and teachers’ decision-making, and the technology decisions that occur
outside and inside the home environment. The conceptual and empirical literature did not explain
the process of mothers’ technology decisions by identifying how mothers form personal
84
technology preferences, how mothers’ preferences inform their intention to use technology and
make technology decisions for their children, and how mothers ascribe meaning to their
children’s technology use. Filling this research gap in the UTAUT and PPCT models was needed
to understand the systems of influence that shape a mother’s technology intention and decisionmaking for herself and for her child.
85
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
Overview
Research examines the influence of technology on proximal processes between adults
and children in social culture, school environments, and within the family setting. Research does
not indicate how mothers form personal technology preferences, how their technology use
affects their technology decisions for their children, or what meaning mothers ascribe to their
children’s use of technology. This research gap formed the impetus for this grounded theory
study investigating the technology decision process mothers use when making technology
decisions for their preschool age children in the home environment. Addressing this research gap
may also help mothers understand how their technology choices may benefit their children.
I begin this chapter with a description of the research design and study questions. Next, I
explain the selection of participants and setting. I conclude the chapter by describing the data
collection procedures, data analysis, trustworthiness, and ethical considerations specific to this
study.
Design
This study investigating the technology decision process mothers use when making
technology decisions for their preschool age children in the home environment required a
qualitative research approach because the interaction of proximal processes and technology
decisions are units of analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 1990, 2008) that occur in social phenomena
best examined through “natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in
terms of the meanings people bring to them” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011, p. 3). Qualitative analysis
facilitated my study of the experiences, opinions, and actions that affect mothers’ technology
decisions for their preschool children. This design allowed me to address the research gap by
86
exploring and describing how mothers “construct and reconstruct self” (Charmaz, 2004, p. 977)
in relation to technology and their parenting role in the microsystem of the home environment.
Grounded theory research focuses on generating theory from participants who have
experienced a similar process or interaction (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). A grounded theory design
fit this study because it provided an integrated theoretical inquiry to describe and explain (Corbin
& Strauss, 1990, 2008) the “systems of interaction” (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, p. 514) and proximal
processes of the Process-Person-Contex-Time (PPCT) model (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998)
with the determinant and moderating factors of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of
Technology (UTAUT) model (Venkatesh et al., 2003) that collectively shape mothers’
technology preferences and decisions for their preschool children in the home environment. This
study explained the technology decisions of mothers for their preschool age children through
theoretically relevant components of the PPCT model. Bronfenbrenner encouraged this
theoretical focus: “The specific components of Process, Person, Context, and Time to be
included in a given investigation should be those that, from a theoretical perspective, are
maximally relevant to the research question under investigation” (Bronfenbrenner & Morris,
2006, p. 808). This study also used determinant and moderating factors of the UTAUT model
within the context of the elements of the PPCT model to explain and understand how a mother
accepts technology for herself and for her preschool age child. This approach helped me develop
a theoretical model of the process phenomenon (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) of the social
interactions of mothers and preschool children.
Because grounded theory traces sociological and philosophical changes affecting
individuals (Corbin & Strauss, 1990, 2008) it was necessary for me to use an organized and
reflexive approach (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 31) to recognize and attend to “the effects of
87
researcher-participant interactions on the construction of data” (Hall & Callery, 2001, p. 257).
Corbin and Strauss’s (2008) systematic grounded theory approach, characterized by theoretical
sampling guidelines and constant comparison data analysis procedures, allowed me to
conceptualize the influences of mothers’ personal technology preferences and personal
technology use on their technology decisions for their children. The guidelines of a systematic
approach helped me organize and conceptualize what influences mothers’ technology decisions
and heightened my awareness of the determinism (Corbin & Strauss, 1990, p. 5) that guides the
technology choices mothers make in their own lives and the lives of their children.
Research Questions
Proximal processes define living environments (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994). Proximal
processes are reciprocal interactions (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, p. 572) whereby an individual is
influenced by an immediate environment while exerting influence on that environment. The
complexities of these interactions in the mother/child dyad prompted the research questions that
guided this study:
1. What factors influence how a mother of a preschool age child forms personal technology
preferences?
2. How does a mother’s personal technology preferences and technology use affect her
technology decisions for her preschool age child?
3. What factors influence how a mother ascribes meaning to her preschool age child’s use of
technology?
Setting
The setting of this study was a southern locale with a traditional “Bible belt” culture in
urban, suburban, and rural areas located in or around one college town in central Virginia. This
88
college town supports five colleges and has a population of 75,568 (U. S. Bureau of the Census,
2010a). An estimated 55% of individuals in this city are enrolled in college or graduate school
(U. S. Bureau of the Census, 2010b). Some of these students would classify themselves as
religious and/or conservative (Thompson, 2012; Williams, 2010).
Household demographics provided the opportunity for maximum variation sampling.
Economically, this central Virginia city has a median household income of $38,005 (U.S. Bureau
of the Census, 2010a). Of the 27,875 households, 58% are families with an average family size
of three persons (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010b). It is estimated that 41% are married-couple
families, and 7% are female only households with children. These categories provided
opportunity for maximum variation sampling of working and stay-at-home mothers, married and
single mothers, younger and older mothers, and mothers of upper, median, and lower household
incomes. This diverse group of mothers provided insight into mothers’ technology decisions for
their children.
Participants
This study used a convenience, snowball, and maximum variation sampling of 18
mothers (see Table 1) with preschool age children (ages 3-5) living in urban, suburban, or rural
areas located in or around a college town in central Virginia. After receiving IRB approval (see
Appendix A), sampling began in January with information provided through email (see
Appendix B) by fellow professors at the university where I teach who are members of various
faith communities and have diverse community contacts. Fellow professors with their
community contacts and participant mothers contacting fellow mothers served as a “gatekeeper”
(Lewin, 1943; Devers & Frankel, 2000) to ensure a mother’s contact information was supplied
voluntarily and with full knowledge and consent of each mother.
89
Table 1
Participant Characteristics
Pseudonym
Age
Race/ethnicity
Marital status
Employment status
Amanda
29
Caucasian
married
stay-at-home
Anita
36
Caucasian
married
stay-at-home
Aryn
31
Caucasian
married
stay-at-home
Becca
26
Caucasian
married
stay-at-home
Cala
36
Caucasian
single
working
Ella
30
Caucasian
married
working
Fiona
26
Hispanic
married
working
Kameya
29
African American
married
working
Kamile
31
Caucasian
married
working
Katherine
22
Caucasian
married
working
Kora
25
Caucasian
single
working
Lainey
31
Caucasian
married
working
Leticia
20
African American
married
stay-at-home
Lexie
31
Caucasian
married
stay-at-home
Maya
27
Hispanic
married
working
Rilee
33
Caucasian
married
working
Shay
32
Caucasian
married
stay-at-home
Sibel
43
Caucasian
married
working
90
I used snowball sampling from information provided by email correspondence (see Appendix C)
from fellow professors with their community contacts, from participant mothers contacting
fellow mothers, and from participants recommending fellow mothers to obtain a total of 18
mothers and four sampling variations (working [mothers who have their preschool age child
taken care of by a family member or non-institutional home care] and stay-at-home mothers,
married and single mothers, young [under thirty years of age] and older [thirty years of age and
beyond] mothers, and mothers of upper [150 thousand dollars and beyond yearly household
income], median [30 to 100 thousand dollars yearly household income], and lower [25 thousand
and lower yearly household income]) (Francis, 2012; U. S. Bureau of the Census, 2010b). I
sampled until there was no new information (Strauss, 1987) and until the data was saturated by
the occurrence of repeating themes.
Procedures
After IRB approval, I recruited mothers using convenience, snowball, and maximum
variation sampling beginning with information provided through email correspondence with
fellow professors at the university where I teach. These professors knew mothers who fit the
study criteria, and they asked them if they would be willing to participate. My fellow professors
also had community contacts who knew of mothers who fit the study and asked the mothers to
contact me via email if they would like to participate. After I completed each participant
interview, I used snowball sampling to ask each mother if they could provide the names of two
mothers they thought might be interested in participating in the study. Study participants
recruited fellow mothers by giving them my email address and encouraging them to contact me
if they would like to participate. These three gatekeeper groups provided sampling variation
(working and stay-at-home mothers, married and single mothers, younger and older mothers, and
91
mothers in upper, median, and lower household incomes). I continued sampling for maximum
variation until group data was saturated by the occurrence of repeating themes and the absence of
new information (Strauss, 1987, p. 21).
I made first contact with each mother by phone or email and arranged a convenient time
and preferred place to meet. Most mothers chose to meet at their home. At this face-to-face
meeting I explained the study criteria and gave each mother an informed consent form (see
Appendix D) and a packet containing a self-addressed stamped envelope and a paper and pencil
demographic questionnaire (see Appendix E) about themselves and their child. If a mother could
not participate because she did not meet the study criteria, I asked her to refer someone else who
might be interested. When I received the signed consent form and the completed packet in the
mail, I analyzed the data reflectively to determine each participant’s study eligibility with the
intent to form a theoretical sample (Glaser, 1978) of participants who could provide rich
information (Patton, 1990). As I reflected on the questionnaire data, I added clarifying questions
to those already a part of the semi-structured interview protocol.
I phoned or emailed each mother to arrange an interview at a convenient place and time
selected by her. Most mothers chose to be interviewed in their homes. In a few cases, participant
mothers chose phone interviews rather than face-to-face interviews due to health, bad weather, or
child-related issues. I video or audio recorded each interview.
After interview data was collected and analyzed, I invited participant mothers to
participate in focus groups at my home. I wanted to protect participants’ privacy by not revealing
where they lived by asking them to host a focus group, but I still wanted to situate data collection
in a home environment if possible. Through email and Facebook messaging we agreed on dates
and times that would accommodate between two and four mothers each session. Most mothers
92
chose a Saturday or Sunday evening when their husband or babysitter could watch their child or
children. Some mothers did not come as scheduled and I tried to reschedule or offer another
means to customize a focus group to meet their individual needs. Four mothers chose focus
group-related phone interviews due to health, bad weather, life circumstances, or child-related
issues that prevented them from leaving their home. To accommodate my interpreter and my
participants whose first language was not English, I held a focus group at their Hispanic church.
Some mothers requested I come to their house a third time to tell them about the weekend focus
group and get their individual responses. Regardless of the focus group customization (focus
group related phone interviews, non-home environment focus groups, or meeting individually
with moms to tell them about the most recent focus group) I used the transcripts from recent
focus groups along with the focus group questions to give each mother opportunity to respond
individually and react to others’ input. All focus groups were orchestrated to confirm categorical
saturation and provide the opportunity for member checking. During individual interview and
focus group data collection, I continued to sample if categories were not saturated. I used
constant comparison to explore possible connections between technology decision process
themes and analyzed all data using open coding and memoing, axial coding, and theoretical
coding to form a paradigm process model (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) of mothers’ technology
decisions for their children.
Researcher's Role
As the human instrument in constructing meaning about mothers’ technology decision
process, I began building critical process awareness in myself by describing my professional
experiences and my personal bias. I am a teaching fellow at Liberty University’s School of
Education where I teach residential and online courses in literacy and assessment to
93
undergraduates pursuing teacher licensure. I have taught in general education and at the
undergraduate and graduate levels in college and university settings. My view of the data is
influenced by my familiarity with the mother and child relationship in a classroom setting and by
my role as a teacher educator.
My view on the topic is influenced by my upbringing. There was not a computer or cell
phone in the house while I was growing up. My parents wanted school professionals to provide
and guide any technology use. Thus, my parents never purchased a computer or cell phone for
me or for themselves. My mother played a more decisive role than my father regarding the
technology decisions in our home. My mother had a strong aversion to technology. It was not
until I was an adult that my mother let my brother, a Microsoft software engineer, purchase and
install computers in my parents’ home. Today, my mother only uses the computer for email and
to bid on eBay. My mother maintains a strong contempt for technology.
Growing up in a home that associated technology and technology use as a school directed
activity, I used the computers and software provided for me by the schools I attended. Likewise,
when I began my teaching career, my device and software knowledge was of those provided by
the school. I did not purchase my first computer until I entered graduate school. Since then I
have only purchased laptops because I value the flexibility of home and school use, and I feel
secure in using the same computer for both. Thus, I embrace the perspective of a digital visitor
conceptualizing technology as a tool for situational use (White, & Le Cornu, 2011). Trial and
error has given me the skills I need to complete the digital tasks required by my teaching career
and the demands of technology innovation.
I think of myself as a technology rebel and acknowledge my researcher bias in this study.
Philosophically and pedagogically, I advocate strongly for technology use, but I advocate just as
94
strongly for thoughtful technology boundaries expressed in Control Comfort Access (CCA)
(Wicks, 2010). This philosophy helps me choose technology that supports my life and work tasks
without added distraction. I regularly and personally assess my effectiveness in using new
technology, in issues related to privacy, and in time expended using technology. How I assess
and manage these issues personally influences my philosophical and theoretical stance in a
researcher’s role.
As the human instrument in this study, I sought theoretical sensitivity (Glaser, 1978) by
grounding my observations in the literature and writing theoretical memos to maintain an
informed open mind (Dey, 1993, p. 65) as I collected and analyzed data. I made formal and
substantive connections (Dey, 1993, p. 48) by mediating the data to understand more fully the
process of mothers making technology decisions for their children.
Data Collection
I collected data in three phases. First, study participants filled out a demographic and
journaling questionnaire. Next, participants were interviewed concerning their technology
preferences, their technology use, and their technology decisions for their children. Finally,
participants were invited to a focus group of other study participants to describe in greater detail
individually and as a group their reasoning process regarding technology decisions for their
children.
Questionnaire
After IRB approval, participant consent was obtained through receipt of a signed consent
form (see Appendix D). Then, I gave each participant a packet containing a self-addressed
stamped envelope and a paper and pencil demographics questionnaire (see Appendix E) about
themselves and their child. The questionnaire requested contact information and demographic
95
information related to the mother’s age, race/ethnicity, education, and family or personal income.
The questionnaire included two questions about the mother’s child concerning age and school
status. Upon receipt of each completed packet, I analyzed the data reflectively to determine each
participant’s study eligibility in the theoretical sample (Glaser, 1978) of participants. As I
reflected on the questionnaire data I added clarifying questions to those already a part of the
semi-structured interview. I added the question, “Do you have a message for American mothers
about their technology decisions?” I typically asked this at the end of each interview. This
question helped to clarify the present/future attitude and motivation of some of the technology
decisions mothers had described in detail during the interview. For a few interviews I added a
scenario-based question about how their child waited at a restaurant or doctor’s office. I asked
this clarifying question to better understand how a mother promoted intentionality through
socializing influences concerning waiting with or without technology.
Interviews
I arranged to meet mothers at a place of their choosing and video recorded the in-person
interviews. Two mothers preferred an over-the-phone interview. I strengthened content validity
by asking standardized open-ended questions that are anchored in the theoretical and empirical
literature (Brod, Tesler, & Christensen, 2009) and were subject to expert review by committee
members.
96
Table 2
Standardized Open-Ended Individual Interview Questions
_____________________________________________________________________________
Technology: Personal Perspective
1. How do you define technology? (RQ1)
2. What technology did you grow up with at home? In school? (RQ1)
3. When did you first use a computer? (RQ1)
4. What do you think about technology now? (RQ1)
5. How often do you use technology? (RQ2)
6. What device could you not live without and why? (RQ2)
Technology: Parent Perspective
7. What technology is your child growing up with? (RQ2)
8. How is that different than your experience? (RQ2)
9. How often does your child use technology and what technology do they use? (RQ2)
10. How do you decide what technology to let your child use? (RQ2)
11. In what ways do you oversee (or control) your child’s technology use? (RQ3)
12. If you could own only one form of technology for your child what would it be? (RQ3)
13. How will your child’s technology use change as he or she enters and goes through
school? (RQ3)
14. How will you facilitate or monitor your child’s technology use at home as he or she
matures? (RQ3)
15. When your child is an adult, in what ways do you predict he or she will use technology
in their career and personal life? How might that be different than your adult technology
experiences? (RQ3)
______________________________________________________________________________
97
These standardized open-ended individual interview questions are grounded in the
theoretical literature and further current understandings of bioecological theory (Bronfenbrenner
& Ceci, 1993, 1994) and the UTAUT model. Questions 5, 9, 10, 11, and 14 broadened the PPCT
model of bioecological theory (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993, 1994) and the microsphere of the
family by examining the proximal processes of mother/child interactions and technology use.
Questions 9, 10, and 14 explored the process by which mothers make technology decisions for
their children—how parents use technology and the attitudes they form relating to the level of
device use and their perceived comfort and positive feelings toward technology (Walker,
Dworkin, & Connell, 2011). Questions 1-12 and 14 added to current perceptions of the UTAUT
model by documenting how a mother’s technology preferences and experience (Questions 1-4)
control technology ownership and use for herself (Questions 5 and 6) and for her child
(Questions 7, 9, 10-12, 14). Questions 11-15 delved into the determinant factors of the UTAUT
model by exploring the meaning mothers ascribe to their children’s use of technology.
These open-ended individual interview questions are grounded in the empirical literature.
Questions 1-6 described mothers’ personal technology preferences and technology use and
extended understandings about how individuals use technology, their access to new devices, and
their perceived capability with the device (Rothbaum et al., 2008). Questions 5-12 solicited
information about how mothers’ personal technology use (Questions 5 and 6) affects their
technology decisions for their children (Questions 7-12).
Question 7 investigated the wide range of technology families have for children to use
(Plowman et al., 2010). It further described the ways parents facilitate early literacy development
(Korat, & Or, 2010) and technology use (Herold, 2011). It extended what is known about how
98
children use technology at home for watching videos, social networking with family and friends,
or gaming (Jewitt & Parashar, 2011; Plowman et al., 2011).
Questions 7, 9, and 10 examined how adult ownership of technology may or may not
mean a child has access to it or knows how to use it (Plowman et al., 2011). These questions
explored whether there is modeling occurring in the home in which a child possesses an
awareness of the functionality of the item without knowing how to operate it (Plowman et al.,
2011).
Each video/audio recorded session was transcribed verbatim by professional transcribers.
I checked transcription accuracy by replaying the video/audio recording and checking the
transcription text. A different person translated and transcribed the interviews of Spanishspeaking mothers. I had the interpreter and translator cross-check interview transcripts for
accuracy. I analyzed and compared each transcription text and added clarifying questions to
those already a part of the semi-structured focus group questions. Using constant comparison, I
analyzed each interview before conducting another interview.
Focus Groups
After interview data were collected and analyzed, I held focus groups with participating
mothers to gather additional data, confirm category saturation, and provide the opportunity for
member checking. Focus groups (Merton, Fiske, & Kendall, 1956) allow a researcher to observe
the “process” (Goldman, 1962) of participant interaction that yields additional data beyond the
information gathered by other methods (Morgan & Spanish, 1984). Member checking through a
focus group helped me question with more depth and follow up with study participants to lessen
the gap between participant response data and participant meaning (Yanow & Schwartz-Shea,
99
2006). I wanted to confirm that the data I was recording and interpreting had the fullest meaning
participants wished to convey.
I divided the mothers into focus groups based on convenience. By asking each mother to
choose one focus group based on a preferred date and time, I encouraged groups with maximum
variation in terms of working and stay-at-home mothers, married and single mothers, younger
and older mothers, and mothers of upper, median, and lower household incomes. The potential
for diversity in each of these focus groups provided a variety of interactions and information rich
data. I video/audio recorded all sessions and asked standardized open-ended focus group
questions.
Table 3
Standardized Open-Ended Focus Group Questions
__________________________________________________________________________
1. What messages do you receive from (media, schools, a faith or cultural community)
about technology? (RQ3)
2. What messages do you get from (friends, family, others) about technology and your
parenting? (RQ3)
3. From your perspective, how does the United States compare to other countries in
technology use? (RQ3)
4. How do stay-at-home mothers use technology differently than working mothers? (RQ2)
5. How does (social or financial status, gender, race) affect technology use? (RQ2)
________________________________________________________________________
The focus group questions were grounded in theoretical and empirical research. Question
1 explored the government or media messages parents perceive to control their children’s
technology use (Johanson, 2010) and parents’ perceptions of bringing technology into the home
100
to provide educational advantages for their children (Stevenson, 2011). It also probed for any
school messages parents receive about how students can overcome limitations of socioeconomic
status or negative peer and family influences through successful interactions with technology
(Lebens et al., 2009). Questions 1-3 prompted further description of how technology and society
relate to parenting perceptions of self-efficacy and the determinant and moderating factors of the
UTAUT model. Question 4 further investigated education through a mother’s working status to
find out if technology has made it possible for parents to facilitate education in the home in more
ways than previous generations (Selwyn, Banaji, Hadjithoma-Garstka, & Clark, 2011). Question
5 investigated how economic capital may influence how parents experience and use technology
and how they facilitate their children’s use of technology (Hollingworth et al., 2011). This
investigation added to what is known about families of varying income levels that both value
technology in their personal life and encourage it in their children’s life as a necessity for the
future (Plowman et al., 2010).
At each focus group session, I summarized data and had participants member check by
confirming or clarifying developing themes generated from the analysis of interview data. I
shared the three themes and two of the four subthemes related to each. I chose the two subthemes
that needed the most clarification from each theme. The mothers gave additional information that
confirmed themes and subthemes. I encouraged the mothers to ask questions but they did not ask
any follow up questions. I received positive feedback that I’d been very “thorough” in describing
their technology decision-making process.
Data Analysis
Data analysis involved verbatim video/audio recording transcription of interviews and
focus groups, open coding and memoing of the data, axial coding, and theoretical coding to
101
develop the theoretical model of mothers’ technology decision-making process for their children.
Each video/audio recorded interview and focus group session was transcribed within a week of
each session. After each interview and focus group session was transcribed I checked
transcription accuracy by replaying the video/audio recording and checking the transcription text.
Line-by-line data analysis and open coding for each interview (see Appendix G) and
focus group session transcript allowed me to use constant comparison (Corbin & Strauss, 2008)
to develop and examine categories. Initially, I used in vivo coding, using participants’ own words
as codes, to highlight key ideas (Saldaña, 2013). In vivo codes such as “hot house lilies”
conveyed the situational reflection and limiting conditions one mother remembered about her
mother turning off the TV and warning her daughters, as she had been warned by her mother,
against staying inside the house too much and not going outside to play. Complex process ideas
like these prompted me to “analyze the data minutely” (Strauss, 1987, p. 31) to ensure my
developing theoretical perspective was broad and grounded in the data. I looked for “indicators”
(Glaser, 1978; Strauss 1987), words, phrases, or sentences that, taken in part or as a whole,
convey a larger concept. When participants used indicator words like “leverage” and indicator
phrases like “in the trenches with our kids,” I used constant comparison to help me find the
pattern in these ideas—mothers were describing their technology perception and intention that
conveyed the larger concept of mothers reflecting situationally in their technology decision
process. During open coding and throughout the data analysis process, I used memoing (see
Appendix G) to record my thinking, insights, or developing ideas (Corbin & Strauss, 2008;
Maxwell, 2005). Memoing helped me analyze and integrate the data from the demographic
questionnaire. I theoretically mixed and matched process, descriptive, and versus coding
strategies (Saldaña, 2013; 2014) so that I could fully identify the actions, thinking, and conflicts
102
mothers’ experience as they described the technology decisions they make for their preschool
age child.
Axial coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) helped me connect and synthesize the emerging
categories (see Appendix I) from the interview and focus group transcripts, and the information
from the questionnaire (demographic). Axial coding involves “intense analysis” (Strauss, 1987,
p. 32) of each category (one at a time) to acquire “cumulative knowledge about relationships
between that category and other categories and subcategories” (Strauss, 1987, p. 32). I used a
coding paradigm model (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) to identify possible connective or causal
relationships between sensitizing (Blumer, 1956) concepts or categories. A paradigm model gave
me a means "to think systematically about data and to relate them in very complex ways"
(Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 99). The model I employed provided a framework from which I
could analyze the actions and intentions of a mother’s technology decisions for herself and her
preschool age child in three ways: the conditions which intervened in or caused her technology
decisions, the influence of time and context on her technology decisions, and the meaning she
ascribed to technology actions and interactions with her child. This model helped me examine
the processes of this phenomenon in relation to “its causes and consequences, its context, and the
strategies of those who are involved” (Flick, 2009, p. 311).
Theoretical coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) allowed me to generate from the gathered
data a hypothetical model of the process of mothers’ technology decisions for their children.
Theoretical coding is a selection process using core codes (Strauss, 1987, p. 33) to focus further
data collection. Sampling is narrowed, and “analytic memos become more focused and aid in
achieving the theory’s integration” (Strauss, 1987, p. 33). Analytic memoing provided a
transition process (Saldaña, 2013, p. 50) for questioning data, categorizing, and systemizing
103
codes into a coherent expression of study findings (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). At the conclusion
of all data analysis I generated a theoretical model that explained the theory. The theoretical
model represents the theoretical connections between categories and themes identified during
open and axial coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The model helps to organize and express the
complexities and nuances of the proximal processes that influence a mother’s technology
decisions for her preschool age child in the home environment.
Trustworthiness
I followed the principles of credibility, dependability, transferability, and confirmability
described by Lincoln and Guba (1985).
Credibility and Dependability
I acknowledged my researcher bias, used member checks and data triangulation, and used
video/audio recording and data transcription to enhance study credibility. Disclosing three
elements of bias—the influence of my upbringing with my mother’s desire that school
professionals provide and guide my technology use, my teaching experiences with technology,
and my experiences with mothers and children—helped me examine my preconceptions and
focus on the study participants (Creswell, 2007). Use of video/audio recording and data
transcription ensured data was collected accurately. I used between-method triangulation
(Denzin, 1970) to cross-check data between study questionnaires, interviews, and focus groups.
These multiple data measures provided confirmation of study interpretations and findings
(Webb, Campbell, Schwartz, & Sechrest, 1966). Incorporating member checks during the focus
groups allowed me to summarize data and have participants confirm or clarify developing
themes (Miles & Huberman, 1994) and the emerging theoretical model.
104
Transferability
I described in detail the study participants and settings to encourage readers to personally
transfer study findings through shared characteristics (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen,
1993). Maximum variation sampling of working and stay-at-home mothers, married and single
mothers, younger and older mothers, and mothers of upper, median, and lower household
incomes heightened the transferability of this study. Also, I provided thick description of the
reasoning process mothers use to decide children’s use of technology in the home setting. This
increases the transferability of the study by prompting readers to decide what information is
applicable to their own experience, population, and setting.
Confirmability
The objectivity of this study was maintained by an audit trail. I gave methodological
details that enable the reader to trace and audit the decisions made regarding the formation of
data into categories and themes (Shenton, 2004). Procedural audit was conducted by a qualitative
research consultant with a terminal degree who examined the process of this research study.
Ethical Considerations
This study acknowledges matters of privacy and personal comfort. I obtained IRB
approval and participant consent before data collection. To ensure the privacy of participating
mothers, I used pseudonyms for all participants and sites. I stored paper questionnaires in a
locked file and after seven years I will shred them. Electronic study data is stored on a password
protected computer and after seven years I will delete it. As a result of participating in this study,
awareness of uncomfortable or unpleasant thoughts or experiences associated with parenting or
technology may have occurred. I made every effort to ensure these thoughts or experiences did
not pose a greater risk than those experienced in everyday life.
105
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
Overview
The purpose of this systematic grounded theory study was to explore the technology
decision process mothers use when making technology decisions for their preschool age
children in the home environment. The study focused on identifying the influences that shape a
mother’s decision-making for herself and for her child to create a theoretical model that
expands and connects elements of the Process-Person-Contex-Time (PPCT) model
(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998) and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of
Technology (UTAUT) model (Venkatesh et al., 2003).
This chapter begins with descriptions of study participants’ life situations, technology
use, and technology perspective for themselves and others related to the home environment.
The chapter continues with a data narrative of results organized thematically to describe the
theoretical model in relation to the study research questions. The chapter concludes with a
summary of study findings.
Participants
Mothers (N = 18) participating in this study were eager to describe and explain their
technology decisions. To understand how each mother’s varied technology decisions
contributed to the development of the theory explaining the process of their technology
decisions for themselves and their preschool age child it is helpful to describe their life
situation, technology use, and technology perspective for themselves and others related to the
home environment. Descriptions are derived from the self-reported information on the
demographic and journaling section of the questionnaire, my memoing after face-to-face visits
with participating mothers, and clarifying questions I added to those already a part of the semi-
106
structured interview protocol as a result of analyzing each mother’s questionnaire to better
understand the mother’s technology perspective and decision-making. Each participant
description shares some similarity in the demographic information presented; but the inclusion
of life situation information (such as a husband’s technology usage) or technology use details
(such as device information) or technology perspective details (related through direct quotes) is
theoretically chosen to accurately portray each mother’s representation of herself as it related to
her technology perspective and technology decision-making. Pseudonyms are used for each
participant mother.
Amanda
Amanda is a twenty-nine-year-old, Caucasian, married mother. She lives in a household
with median income and stays at home with three boys, the oldest of whom is 4 years old.
Amanda has a bachelor’s degree.
Amanda described technology as “things requiring computer programing” and added, “I
don't even think you can describe technology without having technology.” On the questionnaire
she reported that she uses technology the most to stay connected to friends and family and post
pictures to Instagram for grandparents to view. When she described the types of technology in
her home she described devices based on discrete use—“the boys only watch TV when we’re
present” or “a DVD player with limited choices for the kids and ourselves.”
When I asked Amanda about the future and the role of technology in her boys’ lives, she
told me that she hopes technology use will generate a greater sense of community. Her sense of
community envisions a society that has a healthy balance of real-time social activities and
technology advancements. She is concerned about her boys being so connected to technology
that they are not connected to the world. Speaking about her boys she added, “they’ll be a
107
generation that set boundaries for their children and they’ll be a generation to say like ‘this is
what we did, this is what you should do.’”
Anita
Anita is a thirty-six-year-old, Caucasian mother. She is married to an African American
man and celebrates her biracial family. She lives in a household with median income and is a
stay-at-home mother to a 3-year-old boy and a 2-year-old girl. She has a bachelor’s degree.
Anita defined technology as “anything that we plug into the wall.” She wrote on the
questionnaire that she uses most technology at home for Facebook, watching movies, reading
books online, and getting recipes “when I try to cook.” When I asked her about technology’s
influence on her role as a stay-at-home mother she said, “It makes me more lazy.” She
mentioned that Facebook and gaming—“Candy Crush is my go-to game”—interrupted the things
that she needed to get done around the house. She told me with chagrin that she probably spends
three hours a day using digital technology.
Anita values technology for her children. She got a smartphone with a bigger screen for
the sake of her children and the learning apps they play on it. She mentioned how on extended
family trips she picks hotels based on the access to the Internet. She is pondering the idea of
buying her children an iPad because they like the one her husband has for work.
When I asked about the future and her children’s use of technology, she related these
ideas to parenting and education:
. . . technology makes parenting easier in one way. It makes you more of an absent
parent. You know, it makes you less involved because you can just hand them something
and they can get it, and it distracts them and you can do whatever you want. Or, it can
108
distract the parent from actually teaching the child. So, I think technology kind of takes,
like, our responsibility of education of our kids away.
Anita decides what educational tasks she wants her children to do and whether technology
should be a part of completing those tasks. She believes in technology boundaries to promote
proper behavior, socialization, and age-appropriate learning.
Aryn
Aryn is a thirty-one-year-old, Caucasian, married mother. She lives in a household with
median income and stays at home with two daughters: a 4-year-old and a 3-year-old. Aryn has a
bachelor’s degree.
Aryn defined technology as “anything that you would use that is machine-based.” The
technology she could not live without is her smartphone. She uses it to check email, do grocery
lists, and peruse Pinterest for crafts and creative ideas to teach her girls numbers and letters.
When I asked her about how technology influences her role as a stay-at-home mother she
answered, “Technology mostly hinders my interaction with my children.” She believed her
overuse of a smartphone affects her relationship with her children. She personalized and
projected her technology use quandary to American mothers, “I feel convicted every day—I’m
not good at it but I definitely think it’s something that we need to just stop and put our phones
down, put our laptops down, and just be involved in their lives.”
Aryn thinks her daughters’ future technology use will be more “sophisticated” and a
bigger part of their lives. She believes technology will advance to such an extent that it will
affect their ability “to function in society.” When considering this reality, Aryn is pragmatic,
“technology will come, I mean we all learned it and they’re gonna learn it . . . we just have to
109
make sure we’re monitoring that and make sure they understand it’s not the most important
thing.”
Becca
Becca is a twenty-six-year-old, Caucasian, married mother. She lives in a household with
median income and stays at home with a 3-year-old boy and a 2-year-old girl. Becca has a
bachelor’s degree that was partly completed through online classes.
Becca defined technology as “anything from TVs to computers and handheld devices.” In
their home they have smartphones, a TV, an Xbox, laptop computers, and a LeapPad. On the
questionnaire she wrote that her family uses technology equally. Her children watch Netflix and
play on the LeapPad on average 2 to 3 hours a day. She and her husband spend thirty minutes to
an hour a day on the computer, and sometimes watch a couple of hours of TV when the children
go to bed.
As a stay-at-home mother, Becca believed technology influences her role in a beneficial
way as a “huge lifesaver.” During the focus group she mentioned that she uses technology to
occupy her children so she can clean her house and get things requiring focus completed. She
tries to limit their technology use and values their outside play and time reading books. She does
not want her children to “think they can watch TV or play electronics whenever they want.”
When Becca thinks about her children’s future technology use she believes “it’ll be a
huge part of their personal life and career, it’s hard to even think about where technology will go
between now and then.” She believes her children will not control technology for their children
as much as she controls it for them, “They’ll probably be less strict because there will be so
much that they won’t even know how to control it.” She is preparing them for a technological
future by encouraging them to balance their screen time with real-life activities.
110
Cala
Cala is a thirty-year-old, Caucasian, single mother. She is in the median income bracket
and works full-time at a university managing their online advertising vendors. She has a
neighbor friend watch her daughters who are 3 and 4 years old. Cala has a master’s degree.
Cala defined technology as “anything digital that has become a new format through
which we consume content or information.” Cala’s job requires her to know and use the latest
online technology, and this transfers to her home in the many devices she has purchased for her
daughters to use. She explained, “As a working mother, I leverage technology to impact my
daughters’ development in a very honed, precise way.” One way she does this is loading the iPad
mini her daughters use with apps that relate to each girl’s interests and learning level. Cala
believes technology helps her “maximize the time I spend with them.” She and her daughters
listen to music, watch streaming educational videos on Netflix, play educational games on an
iPad mini, and stay connected using FaceTime when Cala is traveling for work.
When I asked Cala about the future and her daughter’s technology use, she repeatedly
used the term leverage which I asked her to define in relation to her daughters, “when I say
leverage technology, I’m really saying use it to our advantage. To, you know, advance where
they stand in their understanding of the world around them.” Cala believes her daughters will
grow up to be more tech savvy than she is. How Cala uses technology to prepare her daughters
for the future is evident in her message to American mothers about technology use: “let it help
you in engaging your children and watching them develop and then being present with them to
make sure they understand what they’re learning and that you can see progress happening.”
111
Ella
Ella is a thirty-year-old, Caucasian, married mother. She lives in a household with
median income and works part-time as an online English teacher. She has a 3-year-old daughter
and a 2-year-old son. Ella has a master’s degree.
Ella defined technology as “some kind of tool that has improved our living conditions.”
On the questionnaire she wrote that she uses technology the most at home to Skype with her
online students, do online grading, and check emails. She is grateful that technology enables her
to work from home.
The device Ella could not live without is the TV. Ella explains, “TV helps me be a better
mother because I’m able to just step back for a second and say like ‘ok I’m just gonna put this
cartoon on and I’m just gonna sit here and have a quiet time.’” Ella told me that this and some of
her technology decisions are “based upon guilt” because “the older generation of mothers give
me their opinions on what they think is right.”
As Ella looks to the future and her children’s technology use, she believes there will be
more “avenues of technology” open to them. She believes her children will have to exercise
technology “moderation” in their personal lives in a manner similar to how they were raised. As
she prepares her children for the technology of the future, she tells herself and encourages other
mothers, “do what works best for you, and what’s healthy for you and for your children.”
Fiona
Fiona is a twenty-six-year-old, married, Latina mother. She moved to the US from
Mexico a few months ago. She is a high income working mother. She and her husband own and
work in a popular local restaurant. Her extended family look after her 4-year-old boy while she is
112
at work. Prior to coming to the United States, Fiona earned a bachelor’s degree; she understands
some English, but speaks little English.
Through an interpreter, Fiona told me that she defines technology as “whatever way you
can communicate.” On the questionnaire she described each member of her family as having the
latest devices, a wide array of devices (smartphones, TV, DVR, Wii, tablets and laptop
computers), and using these devices constantly. When I asked her to describe her technology use
and her child’s technology use in hours per day, she laughed and said repeatedly that they all use
technology constantly.
Fiona feels technology helps her as a working mom to communicate, learn, and teach her
son. She uses her smartphone to FaceTime her family in Mexico and translate and learn English
words she does not understand. Watching TV and videos on You Tube helps her learn American
culture. She uses a tablet computer to read English stories to her son and to help her son practice
writing words in English.
Fiona and her husband make technology decisions for themselves and for their son
together. The only time they don’t make a technology decision together is when they buy
technology gifts for each other. She told me buying the latest technology is a way they surprise
and show love to each other.
When Fiona thinks about her son’s future, she believes his technology use will increase at
school and at home. She thinks the idea of loading all textbooks on a tablet computer is
preferable to carrying around books. She believes she will have to monitor his technology use
through middle and high school to protect him from “bad influences.” When I asked her about
what his technology use might be in adulthood, she told me he would have a harder time
parenting because there would be so much technology he would have to “watch everything” and
113
limit his child’s exposure to technology. When I asked her about this contrast to her own
parenting experience, she told me she did not feel she needed to limit his exposure to technology
now because he was using it to learn and study English.
Kameya
Kameya is a twenty-nine-year-old, African American, married mother. She lives in a
household with median income, works full-time, and is raising a 3-year-old daughter. Kameya
and her husband have family close by who help with childcare. She graduated from high school
and attended three years of college.
Kameya thinks technology is both a great tool and “an annoying tool because people lose
themselves in it.” Part of her full-time job is teaching a computer class designed to help older
adults leverage technology in everyday life. She understands their frustrations and uses that
inspiration to use technology to best advantage for herself and her family. To that end, Kameya
has a lot of technology in her home including two smartphones, multiple tablets, and several
gaming and music devices. She likes to have a wide range of up-to-date devices. She would like
to get her daughter a cell phone made for young children.
Kameya believes technology influences her role as a working mother by giving her a
“needed time out.” Netflix and Veggie Tales are her “friends” and “allies” when she is traveling
or cooking or cleaning. She values her daughter’s paperless learning through tablet apps for
learning the alphabet and numbers as well as for coloring.
When Kameya thinks about her daughter’s future, she is concerned that her daughter will
have some limitations in her career choice because jobs people do will be replaced by computer
apps. She wants her daughter to be very comfortable with technology because she believes
114
technology will expand and change current perceptions of career and parenting. She wants her
daughter to be proactive in controlling her own technology use.
Kamile
Kamile is a thirty-one-year-old, Caucasian, married mother. She lives in a household with
median income and works as a residential and online adjunct professor for a university. A friend
watches her girls, a 3-year-old and a 1-year-old, when she teaches residential classes. Kamile has
a master’s degree.
Kamile characterized technology as something “pre-created” that is “more passive than
active” which is designed to “engage a participant or viewer.” She laughed as she described her
family as an “Apple family” with two iPhones, a MacBook, an iPad, and Apple TV. Kamile
reported on the questionnaire that she uses the most technology in the home to keep up with her
online teaching responsibilities. She tries to limit her girls’ use of technology to about an hour a
day of educational viewing (PBSKids shows or spelling and math game apps on the iPad) when
she needs to distract them so she can check email, make phone calls, or get a task done around
the house. She feels she needs to “make up for” the time the girls spend “distracted” by
technology by playing outside or with non-electronic toys for 2 to 3 hours a day.
When Kamile thinks about her oldest daughter’s future technology use, she worries about
how technology may stifle her daughter’s creativity and pose a danger to her daughter. She wants
her daughter to think for herself and be proactively aware of the dangers of online information
sharing. These ideas were reiterated when I asked Kamile if she had a message for American
mothers concerning their technology decisions for themselves and for their children—“I would
say be aware and err on the side of caution. So don’t post pictures of your naked kids on your
115
Facebook account because you think it’s cute. Disable your location services, you know, choose
the right apps. Choose things that are helpful not harmful.”
Katherine
Katherine is a twenty-two-year-old, Caucasian, married mother. She lives in a household
with median income, and she works evening and night shifts so she can be with her 3-year-old
daughter during the day while her husband is with their daughter in the evenings. She is a high
school graduate with some college experience.
Katherine defined technology as something “brought about because it’s meant to make
our lives better.” She uses a variety of technology at work as an online insurance representative.
Katherine appreciates the variety of technology experiences she has at work and transfers this
appreciation to the technology experiences she desires for her daughter.
Technology and learning are recurring themes in Katherine’s interactions with her child.
She wants her daughter to have every opportunity to explore and learn through technology. In a
focus group she mentioned open education and homeschooling often to emphasize how she
wants her daughter “to be at the cutting edge” of technology knowledge and use. She believes
local schools will not be able to individualize or provide the technology-rich education she wants
for her daughter.
When Katherine thinks about the future and her daughter’s technology use, she thinks
about the experiences she has at work insuring people who have Smarthome technology. She
believes technology will be so integrated into her daughter’s life that it will be “all around her all
day long, 24/7.” To prepare her daughter for this eventuality, she wants to maintain open
communication with her daughter so that they can discuss any subject with appropriateness and
transparency.
116
Kora
Kora is a twenty-five-year-old, Caucasian, single mother. She lives in a household with
median income, works two jobs, and is raising a 3-year-old daughter. Kora lives with her family
who provide childcare while she is working. She is a high school graduate who values learning
and expresses regret about not finishing college.
Kora defined technology as a device which will “require cable or WiFi.” She believes
technology helps her be able to work two jobs and stay connected to her daughter and family.
Kora also appreciates how technology helps her learn, “Like if there’s something that I don’t
know, I can easily grasp it through technology by picking up my phone or computer or anything
like that.” When I asked what device she could not live without, Kora chose a smartphone for
herself and her daughter. On the questionnaire, she wrote that she uses her phone for work, for
leisure to read online, and for learning games and videos to entertain her daughter.
Kora believes her daughter’s future technology use will be extensive. She wants her
daughter to be able to access and “use technology safely.” She plans to maintain open
communication with her daughter so that together they can agree on technology boundaries that
do not “infringe on her privacy” and keep her safe. I asked her if she had a message for other
mothers about their technology decisions, and her answer demonstrates how she tries to prepare
her daughter for a tech future, “Have a healthy balance…because you don’t know what the future
will be like for them.”
Lainey
Lainey is a thirty-one-year-old, Caucasian, married mother. She lives in a household with
median income and works part-time running an online shop of homemade goods. She has a 4-
117
year-old son and a 3-year-old daughter and a baby on the way. Lainey is a high school graduate
and has some college experience.
Lainey described technology as “innovation and scientific advancement in the form of
electronic devices.” On the questionnaire she mentioned that she uses the most technology in the
home to keep up with her online shop and participate in online groups with other women who
sell items online. When she listed the types of technology in her household she noted that each
device is not the latest. She and her husband downgraded from an iPhone and Android phone to
basic phones because they decided they really did not need them and the “benefit was not worth
the high cost to us.”
Lainey has a purposeful view of technology. She appreciates how technology enables her
to stay at home with her children while still supporting her family financially through her online
shop. She monitors the TV closely and prefers it to be off “like always” she said with a laugh.
Looking toward the future, Lainey believes technology will be “integral to every part of
life in some way.” She is concerned about the influence of technology on individuals and
believes every generation has to “wing it” as they parent and respond to the new social
challenges innovation brings. She tries to “make the wisest decisions she can” as she raises her
children and prepares them for “what’s next.”
Leticia
Leticia is a twenty-year-old, African American mother. She is married to a Latino man.
She lives in a household with high income and stays at home with two girls, a 3-year-old and a 1year-old, and a baby boy. Leticia is a high school graduate who is currently taking college
courses online.
118
Leticia defined technology through devices, “smartphones, to laptops, to GPS systems.”
Having just moved to the area from New York City, she uses her smartphone to help her get
around town and to stay in contact with friends and family. However, Leticia values activities
that do not involve technology such as reading books with her children. She prefers her children
to use paper and pencil to work on their letters rather than using a tablet. Leticia wants her
children to be able to read and teach themselves to think critically with or without technology.
When Leticia thinks about her children’s future, she thinks their technology use will
increase. She foresees they will benefit from being able to store their schoolwork on computer,
but she also believes this convenience will not give them the same opportunities she had as a
child to practice organization and be “more responsible.” When I asked Leticia if she had a
message for fellow mothers, she shared her parenting goal that her children balance their
technology use with reading print books in order to find satisfaction in learning for themselves.
She concluded, “If they prefer technology over books, it can interfere with their future.”
Lexie
Lexie is a thirty-one-year-old, Caucasian, married mother. She lives in a household with
median income and stays at home with three boys: a 4-year-old, a 2-year-old, and a baby. Lexie
has a bachelor’s degree.
Lexie defined technology as a “way to access the Internet or some way that I could get
information from something for me.” On the questionnaire she wrote that she uses the most
technology in the home for accessing the Internet on her smartphone and using Xbox to stream
Netflix for her boys to watch educational shows or cartoons. Lexie enjoys having the TV on
“constantly for noise for me.” Technology influences her role as a stay-at-home mother by
119
“allowing me my coveted quiet time”—for Lexie this means being disengaged from mothering
duties, not the absence of noise.
As Lexie thinks about technology and the future for her boys, she hopes that they will be
mature. Speaking of her oldest son as an example, “I would hope that we had trained him up well
enough for him to be able to make smart decisions.” Decision-making is a key element as she
expresses her view of how American mothers can prepare their children for a digital future: “I
would tell them, don't be afraid of being judged because you use it, because there are so many
movements now that are everything has to be all-natural . . . use it as it works for you.”
Maya
Maya is a twenty-seven-year-old, married, Latina mother. She recently moved to the US
from Mexico. She lives in a household with low income and works part-time at a dry cleaner
while a friend watches her 3-year-old daughter. Maya is a high school graduate, understands
some English, but speaks little English.
Through an interpreter, Maya told me that she defines technology as TVs and DVDs and
adds “it is an advantage.” She believes “you can use it in a good way and a bad way.” Maya
thinks she is using technology in a good way when she uses her phone to stay connected with her
husband and family. Her husband is an interstate truck driver and her family is still in Mexico.
When I asked her about an example of “bad” technology use, she tells me that she and her
daughter do not watch “soap opera dramas” on the TV.
On the questionnaire Maya reported that technology influences her as a working mother
by helping her “have more information about how to raise her daughter” by helping her choose
educational apps for her smartphone and educational TV programs that will get her daughter
ready for preschool. Her daughter prefers watching TV, but Maya limits this to “not every day.”
120
In both the individual interview and focus group, Maya emphasized “natural education” and told
me technology should be a supplement not a replacement to natural learning by real-world
experiences.
When Maya thinks about her daughter’s future technology use, she believes it is “going
to be a big conflict” between school and home because “she hangs out with children who use
tablets . . . and she wants one and asks me . . . ” She worries about her daughter and desires to
“train her now to use technology in the right way, uh, not to be, uh you know, addict to
technology, she will not be addict to technology when she grow up, or be dependent on
technology.” In a focus group Maya confirmed that she wants technology to have a limited part
in her daughter’s education and future.
Rilee
Rilee is a thirty-three-year-old, Caucasian, married mother. She lives in a household with
median income and works part-time as an online product tester and an administrative assistant
for her church. She has a 3-year-old boy and a baby girl. Rilee has a bachelor’s degree.
Rilee described technology as anything “modern, advanced, anything that has the ability
to enhance your daily life with batteries, electricity.” On the questionnaire she wrote that she is
the person using the most technology in the home for social media, “general entertainment,” and
completing tasks for her part-time jobs. When talking about the types of devices they have in the
home, she laughed and mentioned their Keurig: then she listed two HD televisions, two
smartphones, two Blue-Ray players, and a LeapFrog TAG reader. She and her son enjoy
Skyping and Facetiming with grandparents.
Rilee believes technology influences her role as a stay-at-home mother by enabling her to
earn two part-time incomes and feel less “isolated” from the outside world by connecting with
121
others through social media. Rilee is highly engaged online and often remarks on blogs she
follows, articles she reads online, or crafts she is making from examples on Pinterest. Rilee
enjoys her personal and mother-related use of technology but also articulates her perception of
social-media conflicts facing American mothers in their mothering and technology decisions:
I think that we should all go a little bit easier on ourselves because it just seems there’s
there is so much pressure to think what your kids need . . . that is one negative thing to
technology because we see what everybody is doing all the time and that can have a
much more negative effect on us. But, I think we all have to do what’s right and
comfortable for our kids and our families and know there’s no magic formula. I think if
we’re doing the best we can, according to what God has called us to do, that’s really all
we can do. So I have to tell myself that every day and I want to tell other people that too.
Shay
Shay is a thirty-two-year-old, Caucasian, married mother. She lives in a household with
median income and stays at home with a 4-year-old boy, a 2-year-old boy, and a baby boy. Shay
has a bachelor’s degree.
Shay defined technology as “the use of computers and iPads, smartphones, videogames,
that kind of thing.” The device she could not live without is her iPad because she can FaceTime
with friends and family. She uses technology to facilitate her role as a stay-at-home mother by
ordering her groceries online and having her husband pick them up after work. She also uses her
Amazon Prime account to look for discounts on diapers and have them shipped to her door in 48
hours. She values technology for its convenience.
Because Shay plans to homeschool her children, she knows technology will increasingly
be a “big part of everyday life” as she looks to the future. She believes, “the devices will be way
122
cooler than what we have right now, and they’re pretty cool right now.” When it comes to her
boys’ technology use she explains, “I don’t want them to be behind, but I also want them to
know that people are more important.” Shay wants each of her children to know how to use
technology and “make time for quiet” to sit and reflect on life “without the distraction that
technology can be.” As Shay anticipates the future of her boys’ technology use, her technology
perspective is revealed in her message of understanding directed to other mothers: “they
shouldn’t feel bad about how they choose to run their home whether they let their kids watch a
lot of TV or use a lot of time with the iPad, I mean God gave them those children so He gave
them the wisdom to know what is best—so do what works for you.”
Sibel
Sibel is a forty-three-year-old, Caucasian, married mother. She lives in a household with
median income and works part-time as an office administrator for a youth camp. She has a 3year-old daughter. Sibel is a high school graduate and has three years of college experience.
Sibel defined technology as “anything electronic” and “things that like our grandparents
didn’t have.” When I asked Sibel about what technology she could not live without, she quickly
rejoined that she could “live without all of it.” When I pressed her further, she admitted that she
values a basic cell phone, not a “super-duper . . . use Google and watch videos” phone, to call
and talk to her friends. Sibel believes technology influences her role as a working mom by
allowing her to maximize what she accomplishes during her work hours so that she can “spend
as much time as possible parenting.” In a focus group, she mentioned she uses the Internet to
answer her parenting questions about her daughter’s health and development. She explained to
the other mothers present that she likes to compare parenting websites to “feel more secure in my
parenting decisions.”
123
When Sibel thinks about the future and technology she wonders about how much
technology a person can use and still “function as a human being.” In response, Sibel plans to
limit her daughter’s future technology use based on three elements: “Does it interfere with real
living, her overall development, and building personal relationships.” With an impassioned tone
she added, “I weigh these things in my mind constantly.” I asked Sibel if she had a message for
American mothers, and she said, “Guard your children from technology.” She reiterated the
importance of children’s mental, physical, and social development, and concluded, “Technology
interferes with all of that.”
Results
Analysis of questionnaire, individual interview, and focus group data revealed that the
process by which mothers make technology decisions for themselves and for their children is
multidimensional and connect the developmental proximal processes of the PPCT model with
determinant and moderator factors of the UTAUT model through three new technology decision
constructs derived from this study: reflecting situationally, promoting intentionality, and valuing
individuality. Situational reflection is a mother’s contextualization of time through past and
present technology use whereby she forms technology preferences. Promoting intentionality
describes a mother’s development of person characteristics in herself and in her child by
connecting her personal technology preferences and use to her technology decision process for
her child. Valuing individuality is a mother’s reaction to the context of changing technology
whereby she values individuality of technology use for herself and for her child. The theoretical
study model (see Figure 1) illustrates these connections situated in the microsystem of the home
environment.
124
Managing
time and
monitoring
content
Evaluating
need
Facilitating
Learning
Facilitating
socialization
Child
Child
Valuing individuality
in technology use
Promoting intentionality
in technology use
Transferring
training
Embracing
innovation
Worrying
about
unknowns
Self
Self
Person
Present
Resisting
group
thinking
Reflecting situationallyforming technology
preferences
Context
Time
Mothers’ Technology Decisions in the
Home Microsystem
Mesosystem
Perception
and
intention
Facilitating
and limiting
conditions
Past
Exosystem
Macrosystem
Learning by
trial and
error
Home and
school use
Figure 1. Theoretical model for mothers’ technology decisions. This figure depicts the process mothers experience when they make
technology decisions for themselves and their preschool child in the home environment.
125
The model is not linear because mothers make technology decisions using a multidimensional cyclic process. Mothers may start the decision process cycle at different points or
proceed through the cycle in different directions, but they engage in all the decision constructs
(reflecting situationally, promoting intentionality, and valuing individuality) to varying degrees.
One cycle construct illustrates how mothers reflect situationally on past and/or present time
characteristics to inform their technology preferences. Mothers’ technology preferences form
from reflection on experiences related to the facilitating and limiting conditions of growing up
with technology, their past home and school technology use, how they learn technology through
trial and error, and how they perceive and intend to use technology. Another construct in the
cycle displays how mothers promote intentionality in technology use to develop person
characteristics in themselves and their children. Mothers accomplish this by the way they use
technology to facilitate socialization, facilitate learning, monitor time and manage content, or
evaluate their technology needs and that of their children. The last cycle construct shows how
mothers contextually value individuality in personal technology use when they embrace
innovation, resist group thinking, transfer training, or worry about the unknown for themselves
and their children.
Where a mother begins her technology decision cycle depends on the nuances of the
technology choice: whether it is a personal choice, a choice for her child, or both. When faced
with a personal technology choice to keep or downgrade from a smartphone to a basic phone,
Lexie’s personal technology decision process demonstrated the three construct decision cycle:
“. . . they’re trying, obviously, to force everyone into the smartphone thing, but I mean for us,
I’m at home, with the kids, and we have WiFi, I don’t need the 3G, when I do go out, really the
only phone I need is a telephone in case of emergency.” Lexie’s personal technology decision
126
process began with valuing individuality “for us” in response to the pressure she perceives from
her cell carrier. Next, she situationally reflected on the present and what “we have,” then she
promoted intentionality in addressing her needs: “really the only phone I need is a telephone in
case of emergency.”
When I asked Sibel to describe her daily personal technology use, her answer
demonstrated how a mother’s personal technology decision can merge with a technology
decision for her child through the three constructs of the decision process cycle:
I don’t even really want her to see me working on the computer because then she’s all
like “ooo what’s that?” And I’m like, “you don’t need to know about that now, you can
just wait,” and she’s like, “I’ll do it mommy,” and I’m like, “I’m sure you would, yeah
that’s when you get to school worry about that.
Sibel’s technology decision process began by promoting technology intentionality in herself by
not wanting her daughter “to see me working on the computer;” then, she both promoted
intentionality in her daughter by controlling her computer access and showed she valued her
individuality in the statement “you don’t need to know about that now, you can just wait.”
Sibel’s technology decision process for herself and for her child ended by her again merging two
cycle constructs: she valued her daughter’s individuality by encouraging her to “worry about”
technology, and Sibel encouraged her daughter to situationally reflect on the present “when you
get to school”—which, for Sibel’s daughter, will begin in a few months.
When mothers faced a technology choice for themselves and/or their children, their
technology decision process started at varying points of the decision cycle and progressed multidirectionally to different cycle elements. Several mothers (n = 7) mentioned how they gave their
children their smartphone to keep them occupied while waiting at a restaurant or doctor’s office.
127
I added this participant-generated scenario to the interview questions, and Aryn’s response to the
scenario demonstrated a multi-directional use of the three technology decision process
constructs: “We really don’t, I don’t really let them do that, yeah, I like them to learn how to wait
without having to be entertained. I’m kind of old school when it comes to that.” She began the
technology decision process for her daughters by valuing her individuality in the parenting roll
“we really don’t” and then she promoted intentionality in technology use with “I don’t really let
them do that.” Next, Aryn’s decision process returned to valuing individuality, but this time in
developing individuality in her children “I like them to learn to wait without having to be
entertained.” Her technology decision for her daughters concluded by merging two cycle
constructs: she valued her own individuality and reflected situationally when she contextualized
time, “I’m kind of old school when it comes to that.” Mothers like Aryn made technology
decisions for themselves and their preschool children that demonstrated a multi-directional
iterative process that reflected their personal technology preferences. To better understand
mothers’ technology decision process, each new construct is described beginning with how
mothers form personal technology preferences through situational reflection.
Reflecting Situationally
The first research question asked what factors influence how a mother of a preschool age
child forms personal technology preferences. Situational reflection is a mother’s
contextualization of time through past and present technology use whereby she forms technology
preferences. Time was a factor in the situational reflection process mothers used to form
technology preferences. Mothers contextualized their personal technology preferences within the
changing social/technological expectations of past and present macrotime (Bronfenbrenner &
Morris, 2006) concerning the facilitating and limiting conditions of growing up with technology,
128
their past home and school technology use, how they learn technology through trial and error,
and how they perceive and intend to use technology.
Time characteristics. Some mothers situationally reflected through time comparison.
Like many mothers, Kameya compared levels of technology use, “My three-year-old can run
circles around me, compared to what we were doing back then.” She also contextualized
technology and social expectations, “I remember when I finally got tapes, then I finally got a
CD, Yaaaaaa! I was like ‘I got a CD!’ You know? Now, what is a CD? Put in iTunes.” The
interview questions encouraged participating mothers such as Kameya to briefly reflect about
their current and past technology use, but the mothers’ responses suggested that they had
situationally reflected through time comparison well before this study. Cala reflected on how
different her childhood is from her daughters’. Cala believes her daughters expect much more
from technology than she did at their age. To illustrate this, Cala told me of her oldest daughter’s
encounter with an old CD player—“She said, ‘Mommy, what is this?’ And I said, ‘You know,
that’s a CD player; I can play music on that’ . . . and so she looks at it and she’s inspecting it and
then she says in a loud voice, “CD player, play music.” Expecting all technology to be voiceactivated are just some of the realities in children’s lives that prompt their mothers to
situationally reflect through time comparison and form technology preferences for themselves
that impute value on new technology through comparison with older or obsolete technology.
Some mothers situationally reflected about the past. Rilee reflected on growing up with
the joys of getting to pick out and rent a video, “My husband and I joke that our kids will never
know what a Blockbuster video store is.” Amanda remembered non-digital library use and
information seeking in books before Google. These and similar temporal reflections were factors
in mothers’ technology preferences for approximate experiences such as picking out a video on
129
Amazon Prime or carry-over experiences such as insisting that some things be researched in a
real book.
Several mothers (n = 5) reflected anthropomorphically about technology coming-of-age
with them. Some mothers expressed feelings like “technology followed my age group” and “as I
have grown so has technology.” Kamile, an older mother, summarized this shared feeling—“I
feel like I am of the generation that was the first to grow up with technology.” Both older (thirty
years of age and beyond) and younger (under thirty years of age) mothers shared this idea that
technology was coming-of-age with them, and both tried to use the past to inform their current
technology preferences and decisions. Katherine, a younger mother, remembered her computer
use growing up and her parents’ response, “they tried to make sure we had, you know, a basic
understanding of them, but they weren’t very educated in them.” Now in a world of Facebook
and Snapchat, Amanda, a younger mother, expressed a frustration shared by younger and older
mothers alike, “there isn’t a generation before me saying ‘oh this is how we dealt with this’—it’s
hard.” Both younger and older mothers perceived their technology-related growing up
experiences were so different from the present that they further contextualized time by forming a
priori technology preferences from the facilitating or limiting conditions they perceived growing
up.
Facilitating and limiting conditions. Mothers situationally reflected on the supports
(facilitating conditions, UTAUT model; Venkatesh et al., 2003) and limitations to their
technology use in their childhood home. Cala’s mom stayed at home with seven children and
used technology to homeschool. Cala described her mother’s appreciation for technology and her
excitement “to upgrade and get the next new thing.” Cala’s experience was different from other
participating mothers. Mothers remembered as children how their working parent(s) felt more
130
comfortable with technology and brought it home for their family to use incidentally while
learning how to use the device through trial and error. Typically the working parent was a father,
but Kameya described how her mom worked three jobs and was “very big on technology.”
Lainey’s mom worked as an accountant and was “very up on all the technology.” Lainey
remembered, “I mean I was always impressed as a high school student with how in the know my
mom was about technology because most people’s parents were just like ‘oh what’s this, I never
used one of these’ and my mom really I mean she knew all the cutting edge stuff. She would read
you know PC magazine and stuff like that.”
Lainey’s impression of “most people’s parents” was what most mothers in the study
remembered about their own mothers’ ambivalence, skepticism, or control of technology. Ella
remembered her mom turning off the TV and warning her daughters against becoming “hot
house lilies”—a phrase she herself had heard her own mother say growing up. Kamile’s mother
“was always skeptical about TV and computers—she didn’t want that to be what raised us, she
wanted life experience to raise us.” Mothers formed technology preferences that were a reaction
to their parents, particularly to their own mother’s facilitation or limitation of technology.
Kamile used situational reflection to contextualize the technology limitations of the past and
form technology preferences for the present, “Technology is just a part of life, you can’t do what
my mom did and just say ‘well we’re just not gonna, it’s just not gonna be our family, it’s not
gonna be a part of your growing up experience.’ You can’t, it’s everywhere . . . I think what our
job is now is to teach responsibility, teach technological responsibility.” Many mothers shared
childhood experiences similar to Kamile where their own mothers encouraged outside play as
much or more than screen time. Aryn remembered how her mom leveraged TV use, “She had
five kids so having a TV wasn’t, to her, a bad thing because it kind of kept us busy at certain
131
times and the rest of the time we were outside.” As these mothers situationally reflected on how
technology was facilitated or limited while they were growing up, they formed technology
preferences for shared technology experiences with their children balanced with non-technology
related activities. In a focus group Rilee shared her satisfaction with her balanced approach, “My
son wants to be outside and they want to do stuff with their hands and I feel like that’s so much a
part of boyhood, um, they want to work most of the time. They want to be providers and
conquerors and I think that helps them pull away from technology in a lot of ways which is
good.” Encouraging non-technology related activities with thoughtful technology use was a
facilitating condition formed from mothers’ reflections on the contextual demands of time.
Mothers contextualized time by situationally reflecting on their growing up years and the
lack of access to computers at school and home. Rilee mentioned the lack of computer access
and use in high school, “Nobody ever really used the computers to do much of anything for
school except maybe type a report, and I remember having friends coming to our house to use
the computer to type up a report and print it off because we were one of the few families in town
that actually had one.” Most mothers recalled having only one computer in the house growing
up. The family computer was located in a public space such as the living room, the basement, or
kitchen. Mothers shared a common reflection that they did not use the family computer very
much based on its limitations of functionality and speed. Reflecting on these limitations, younger
mothers formed technology preferences for the functionality of smartphones. Older mothers had
the same reflections on the old family desktop, but their reaction was a technology preference for
functionality based on need and simplicity.
Home and school technology use. Reflecting on their home situation as children,
mothers remembered their technology use by device: using a Commodore for typing games,
132
using Nintendo for games, or watching TV—rather than describing TV shows. Aryn
remembered getting a TV at home when she was middle school age “and my parents got cable
and it was like a huge deal it was like the biggest thing ever.” Mothers situationally reflected that
they watched more TV growing up than using a computer in the home. These reflections had
varying effects on the technology preferences mothers formed in the present. For some mothers,
the amount of television watching growing up transferred directly to their current technology
preference. Lexie reflected, “It’s because of my Mom, because it was never quiet growing up . . .
umm . . . the radio was always on if the TV wasn’t . . . I always remember there being some kind
of background noise . . . So it’s on all the time here, as far as, at least for background noise.”
Shay watched a limited amount of TV growing up and transferred that situational reflection to
her preference for TV watching being a “treat” for herself and for her children.
Other mothers formed technology preferences about TV watching that were opposite of
their parents technology preferences. Lainey identified her parents as “big TV watchers” that
“would leave the TV on 24/7.” She remembered turning off the TV as a youth when she was
home alone—a practice that carries over to her current preference to have the TV off in her own
home. Leticia remembered her mom was “completely obsessed with like movies and stuff,” but
she also remembered that her mom told her that TV “can have an effect on your mind” and that
her mother “would try to get us to read books more.” Leticia is not a TV or movie watcher which
is opposite of her mother’s technology preference, but she did carry over to her own mothering a
desire to get her children interested in books. Whether mothers developed similar or opposite
technology preferences to their own mothers’ technology use, their situational reflections of the
past informed their present technology choices.
133
Mothers’ situational reflections on their technology experiences in school emphasized
actions: learning to read in elementary school with Reader Rabbit, learning to type in middle or
high school computer labs, responding to peers or teachers through online platforms, and
registering or taking college classes online. Few mothers remembered using computers in
elementary school. Lainey remembered seeing one old computer in every room of her
elementary school that “just kind of sat there.” Mothers who used computers in elementary
school described learning the alphabet and reading stories with reading games or reading
programs on disk or playing other education games such as Oregon Trail. Interestingly, the
absence or limited nature of these experiences did not preclude mothers’ development of
technology preferences for using technology to teach their children reading and math skills using
education games.
As younger and older mothers situationally reflected on secondary school, they had
similar technology experiences. Mothers remembered middle or high school as the time they
learned to type in computer labs. Some younger mothers recounted how they learned some of the
basic programs in Microsoft Office such as Word and PowerPoint as part of a typing/computer
science class. Older mothers mentioned high school as the time they saw teachers incorporating
technology into their presentations or communicating to the class and parents through an online
website or through email. Both older and younger mothers’ situational reflections on technology
use in middle school and high school promoted a technology preference of wanting schools to be
responsible for explicitly teaching their children the technology skills they need to know. Cala
was the only mother who did not share this preference. Her situational reflections on being
homeschooled in middle and high school prompted a technology preference that she be the one
to teach her girls technology skills: “I really view my job as a parent that it’s my personal
134
responsibility . . . to make sure that they’re getting the information that they need and are feeling
equipped for life—I think that school is sort of a supplement to that.”
Mothers’ technology preferences were further shaped by their experiences in college.
Most mothers (n = 17) in this study had some degree of college experience and shared a common
situational reflection that this was the time that Internet use, instant messaging, and online
platforms became part of life. Shay remembered when the college she attended converted to
online registration: “I could get up and register for my classes in my pajamas” from the comfort
of home. Younger mothers, like Becca, used the Internet and online platforms in college "to
upload papers, and do discussion boards, and we had to do research for research papers through
websites.” Lainey remembered that the first online classes “didn’t really work well most of the
time” because of broken links, speed and connectivity issues. Older mothers were going through
college at a time when Internet use by college faculty and students was still novel. Older mothers
remembered using the Internet for research resources, email, and instant messaging. Aryn
explained her instant messaging use, “I did it all the time. It’s how we, you know, instead of
calling on the phone . . . that’s how we communicated.” The situational reflections of college
technology use for both older and younger mothers developed technology preferences for
Internet information seeking and online communication. Mothers turned their college online
research skills into online researching skills about mothering, health, and their developing child.
Also, their college online communication patterns transformed from Instant Messenger and
discussion board use as students to texting, Facebook, and FaceTime use in their role as mothers.
Mothers’ formal education may have come to an end with the completion of their college
experiences, but the informal learning necessary to use new technology is ongoing.
135
Learning through trial and error. Mothers not only used situational reflection to
connect with the macrosystem of the past but also the macrosystem of the present. Mothers
expressed concern about their personal level of technology experience (UTAUT model;
Venkatesh et al., 2003) with devices and apps for helping their child to effectively interact with
people and objects in a fast-paced age of technology innovation. Kameya expressed regret that
she “pushed back so much” about learning how to use technology in school. She believes she is
learning technology now that she should have learned in school. She explained her current
technology learning process as “you're constantly trying to regroup and grow.” She concluded
that technology is “not smarter than I am—it just knows another way to do it and we're both on
the same page, sooner or later.”
Several mothers (n = 6) described their technology learning as a trial-and-error process to
learn a new platform at work or navigate the features of a new device. Shay reflected on one of
her first jobs out of college working with a web-based course management system for distance
learning, “I felt like there was a little bit of a learning curve there, but you know, that's always
how it is, when you're learning a new program, you have to work with it till you become
proficient in it. I felt like, life is about learning.” Mothers like Shay were quick to contextualize
their past technology experiences and bring them to the present to guide their current technology
preferences and use. Younger mothers developed technology preferences for using singular
devices such as smartphones that could “do it all.” For some mothers, this lessened their feeling
of needing to “relearn everything.” Some older mothers developed preferences for using devices
with fewer features with the intent that there would be less to learn and remember. Ella explained
her technology preference and her husband’s role in her preference formation:
136
He had to convince me to get an iPhone because I was just fine with my little rinky-dink
text phone because I feel, a lot of times, I feel overwhelmed by it if I don’t understand it
right away. So I just throw my hands up in the air, I’m like “wahh, I can’t figure it out.”
Um, so he’s kinda the one that will like push me out of my comfort zone, be like “oh
you-you really will like this.”
As older mothers reflected on their current technology preferences and use with regard to
changing technology, they preferred to read and know about changing technology while owning,
as Sibel described it, “a step back” from the latest technology for themselves and for their
children.
Perception and intention. Mothers’ situational reflections on the past and present
developed technology perceptions and intentions that informed their technology perceptions. I
asked mothers what they thought of technology now, and Becca put into words a feeling many
mothers shared that technology “basically runs our lives . . . it plays a huge role in everything.”
Cala, whose job requires her to know and use the latest digital communication platforms, put it a
different way, “I think it’s infiltrated society almost to the point of being like a fault . . . we have
to really watch and balance carefully our digital consumption.” Cala’s situational reflection
“almost to the point” contextualized her perception of technology “being like a fault” and
informed her intention to “watch and balance carefully” digital consumption which formed a
personal technology preference to limit her technology use.
Mothers perceived technology as “amazing” and making “life easier,” (performance
expectancy, UTAUT model; Venkatesh et al., 2003) but they did not perceive technology as
making life simpler. Mothers shared perceptions similar to that expressed by Amanda, “Parts of
technology are overwhelming.” Perceiving that technology could be overwhelming, mothers’
137
technology intentions for themselves were focused on the immediate and the known. Fiona
described herself as using technology “constantly” but focused her technology intentions on
immediate communication with her husband and business here in the US and her extended
family in Mexico. Fiona and Maya had similar technology intentions to connect what they know
about American culture and communicating in English to the unknown. By using Google and
translation apps on their smartphones, Fiona and Maya found answers to their cultural and
language-related questions. Fiona believes technology is “indispensable” and Maya appreciates
“the help” technology provides.
Help was a recurring theme in mothers’ situational reflections on their current technology
use. Ella described her frustrations with using new devices or apps, “I have very low patience
with this so if I don’t understand it, I will usually call him, um, and just be like, ‘I need you to fix
my problem.’” Mothers’ technology perception that they could collaborate with and receive help
(facilitating conditions, UTAUT model; Venkatesh et al., 2003) from their husbands supported
their intention to help others, specifically their children, with their technology use.
Mothers contextualized time and situationally reflected on their intention to include
technology in their children’s lives. Kamile explained her perception of time and her intention to
include technology use in her daughters’ lives, “I want to include it because it’s, it’s such a part
of life right now and it’s going to get more and more so as my kids grow up.”” Mothers like
Kamile believed they could help (facilitating conditions, UTAUT model; Venkatesh et al., 2003)
their children interact with technology more effectively both now and in the future. Cala
summarized what many mothers perceived about their children’s current and future technology
use, “for them there’s these expectations of technology because of where they are in history and
how at this point they’re expecting all this from their technology and being able to interact with
138
it.” Mothers perceived they could help their children leverage the advances in technology
through their own technology perception and situational reflections. Kameya explained, “you
know ultimately we want these kids to enjoy technology for what it should be—education,
enjoyment, a sense of excitement, of exploring, you know . . . always be watchful, always be
prayerful, always be intuitive, and in the trenches with our kids.” Kameya’s explanation
demonstrated her technology decision cycle that began with her use of the word “ultimately” as a
situational reflection on time and her perception that kids should “enjoy technology.” Next, she
promoted intentionality by describing how she and other mothers can be intentionally
“watchful,” “prayerful,” and “intuitive.” Finally, she valued parental support of children’s
individuality with the imagery of being “in the trenches with our kids.” Mothers used situational
reflection to individually and intentionally include technology in their children’s lives.
Situational reflection on past and present macrotime helped mothers contextualize the
facilitating and limiting conditions of growing up with technology, their past home and school
technology use, how they learn technology through trial and error, and how they perceive and
intend to use technology. Thus, time characteristics were a multi-dimensional factor in the
situational reflection process mothers use to form personal technology preferences. These
technology preferences promoted intentionality in mothers’ technology decisions.
Promoting Intentionality
The second research question asked how a mother’s personal technology preferences and
technology use affects her technology decisions for her preschool age child. Promoting
intentionality describes a mother’s development of person characteristics in herself and in her
child by connecting her personal technology preferences and use to her technology decision
process for her child. By contextualizing time through situational reflection, a mother formed
139
technology preferences that promote intentionality in her technology decisions for her own
personal use and that of her preschool age child. Developing person characteristics is the factor
that drives intentionality and connects technology preferences to the technology decision
process.
Person characteristics. Mothers used technology to continue their lifelong development
of person characteristics. Whether participants made reference to a faith community or not, they
articulated their intention to develop personal morality in their technology preferences and use.
Amanda was very aware of her smartphone use and resolved, “I'm trying to be careful that I'm
engaging the people that I'm around too.” She intentionally did not download many apps or use
her smartphone to its full capacity or potential, “I'm sure I could but is that where I should spend
my time? Is that what I should do?” Aryn talked about social media and avoiding “the trap” of
personal comparison, “Pinterest and Facebook, those are things where you see what people are
doing and you compare yourself to them and then you’re like I would love to do all of this stuff
and you can’t do it and it just makes you feel crazy.”
Personal morality promoted technology intentionality in mothers’ continuing
development of their own person characteristics and in the person qualities they wish to develop
in their children. Mothers wanted their children to develop person characteristics that reflect
morality and community. This involved using teachable real-time moments to teach “basic
morals” such as gender respect, racial equality, and healthy body image.
During the focus groups some mothers linked the basic moral of healthy body image with
technology. Katherine believed the prevalence of technology and the need for safety as her
daughter becomes a part of the online community necessitated teaching her daughter healthy
body image “part of that also includes making sure we are educating her, from the beginning
140
about things like, you know, her body, and that it is hers.” Katherine’s technology decision cycle
began with intentionality “we are educating her” followed by situational reflection on time “from
the beginning” and ended with promoting individuality in her daughter that her body “is hers.”
Mothers like Katherine viewed themselves as the primary teachers of these moral values, and
they perceived technology as both a resource and hindrance. Katherine viewed technology as a
resource, “as she gets older, it’s a continuing conversation, that technology will have a role in,
you know we have to tell her about how people can use technology to do some inappropriate
things—but when she reaches an appropriate age to understand it and do something about it.”
Some mothers perceived technology could negatively affect their child’s moral
development. Ella believed technology could be a hindrance to building her child’s sense of
morality and community. She explained, “I want my child to be kind, I want them to be wellliked, I want them to be able to show love to other people, and I feel too much technology would
interfere with her ability to do that.” Several mothers (n = 7) shared Ella’s belief that technology
could interfere with their child’s moral and social development so that they intentionally limited
their child’s use of technology for entertainment purposes.
Some mothers expressed their limitations on their child’s technology use as
“convictions.” For example, Cala limits her daughters’ TV use and encourages them to play their
iPad mini which is loaded with educational games. However, Cala told me that not having the
TV on was “a personal conviction for in my home” that did not extend to someone like the
family’s babysitter who also makes technology decisions for her girls. Most participating
mothers echoed Cala’s belief that personal technology convictions for their children did not
extend beyond the family’s home. This was not the case with Ella. While Ella never used the
term conviction, she was highly intentional that others honor her device preference that her
141
daughter use the TV for entertainment and the iPad for education purposes. She explained,
“there’ve been a couple times I’ve had to step in with grandma or dad and just be like, ‘Don’t,
please don’t let her do that on-on that, on the iPad.’” Mothers used their technology preferences
to develop morality and person characteristics through intentionality in their technology
decisions for their children and for themselves.
Facilitating socialization. Mothers’ situational reflections on their technology use
prompted them to intentionally limit their own technology interactions (person characteristics;
PPCT model; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006) as a result of social influences (UTAUT
model; Venkatesh et al., 2003). Some mothers limited their reading of the news, others limited
their online game playing, and some limited their Facebook use. When asked about their
imposed limits on Facebook, mothers described intention and access limits imposed for their
own personal development. Mothers like Amanda promoted intentionality in their Facebook use
by limiting their socializing intentions to stay in touch but not in contact with people. Amanda
explained, “I might not talk to you for the next six months, but I see your kids growing up and I
see like stories of what’s happening.” Staying in touch but not in contact with people allowed
Amanda to “rejoice with a friend” asynchronously without taking valuable time away from the
social influences of her mothering schedule or her real-time interactions with her family.
Amanda also imposed on herself an access limit of asking her husband to make and keep her
Facebook password, “That’s where my accountability is, ‘Okay, you have to log me in.’” Other
mothers facilitated their own accountability and socialization using their child’s schedule as an
imposed technology access limitation.
Intentionally imposing time limitations. Some mothers used their child’s napping or “the
little in-between times, when the kids are busy doing something” as a limited opportunity to take
142
a break from mothering and engage with technology. Mothers explained the importance of
watching TV, information-seeking on their smartphones, or scanning Facebook with statements
such as “some days that’s your only connection with the outside world” and “I feel like I can just
turn my brain off for a second.” Mothers in this study shared the view of mothers in other studies
(Venkatraman, 2012) that technology was a “treat” and an opportunity for escape. The
contribution of this study is the emphasis mothers place on their self-imposed limitation. Like
other mothers, Ella views Facebook as a treat; but, when she explained her thinking to me, her
emphasis was the time limitation, “Oh, let me just look at that for a second and escape for a little
bit.”
Intentionally recognizing social influences. Ella’s explanation alludes to the sanction
some mothers described in the questionnaire and individual interviews about the social influence
of comments made by husbands and pediatricians about extended screen time. These comments
prompted mothers to associate their personal extended screen time (computer, phone or TV) or
their children’s extended screen time with bad parenting and inhibiting their child’s social
development. In the focus groups, I asked mothers about these influences, and the few that
recognized and attended to these messages explained that it was their recognition of the
leadership authority of their husband and the medical authority of their child’s pediatrician that
prompted them to limit their child’s screen time. It was the lack of perceived authority that made
these mothers ignore other social messages about technology, appropriate social interactions, and
their child’s development.
Intentionally facilitating social interactions. Mothers promoted age-appropriate social
interactions by intentionally facilitating and controlling their child’s technology access.
Understanding what mothers think are appropriate social interactions begins with their
143
situational reflection on technology and the differences between their childhood and that of their
children. Having just moved to the US from Mexico, Fiona provided a valuable situational
reflection on childhood, “I remember when I was a little girl, the games were house, cooking,
dolls, all those things, not games, but toys in reality. But now, the children are focused on Xbox,
the Wii, tablets . . . .They don’t make games like before. I believe they’ve forgotten them now
because children live in technology.” Kameya believes the difference in childhoods is material:
“mine was things, touchables as far as like books and so on—hers is DVDs, sounds, music and
anything animated.” Mothers who situationally reflected on the differences in childhoods shared
Becca’s concern that their children would “rely” on technology “to entertain them” rather than
going outside to play, or as Becca explained, “I had to just find something to do, go play with a
friend.” Sharing the same reflections as Becca, Ella wanted her children to use technology but
also to “be challenged to do independent or imaginative play” without technology. Situational
reflection prompted younger and older mothers to compare the socialization of their childhood
with the socialization they believe is possible and preferable for their children and to use their
technology preferences to promote intentionality in their parenting technology decisions.
Intentionally reacting to technology. With regard to socialization, several mothers (n =
6) are parenting as they were parented but with intentional reactions to the prevalence of
technology. Mothers wanted their children to know which social interactions fit with technology.
Shay valued the socialization of texting, emailing, and FaceTime for herself and for her children;
but she is teaching her boys what she was taught about communicating thankfulness, “When we
get a gift from someone, we sit down and write a thank-you note. That's polite! That's what you
do!” Shay reacted to the prevalence of technology by developing morality and person
characteristics in herself and in her children by intentionally using technology for certain
144
socializing purposes (emailing, texting, FaceTime) and not for others (expressing thankfulness).
Shay’s technology decision process included intentionality, individuality, and situational
reflection when she concluded that technology is “fun and there's a lot that's useful, you know,
but at the same time, I don't want to give up the old.”
Intentionally learning to wait. Mothers used their technology preferences to socialize
their children in appropriate waiting skills. Lainey expressed incredulity about seeing other
mothers give their children tablets to use while grocery shopping or while waiting for food at a
restaurant, “I just kind of roll my eyes at it because I’m just like, ‘Really?’ Like you could be
talking as a family or playing something.” Lainey further emphasized the importance of teaching
a child to wait and socialize with the family without using technology as a distraction. Other
mothers used their smartphone or brought along a tablet so the child could play games or watch
videos while waiting at a doctor’s office or restaurant. Kamile appreciated being able to bring a
tablet for her daughter to use when they’re away from home or at the doctor’s office, “She has an
immune disease so she can’t touch things when we’re out and about.” Kamile’s iPad kept her
daughter’s hands occupied and away from touching common surfaces. Some mothers gave their
children their phone or a tablet to use while in a restaurant. Anita explained, “It’s the easy go to
babysitter at the table.” A few mothers (n = 3) mentioned a local restaurant that offers customers
with children devices that children can play or listen to while they are waiting for a table or
seated at a table. Whether mothers wanted to teach their children to wait with or without
technology demonstrated their technology preference which promoted intentionality in the
technology decisions they made for their children. The desire of the mothers to develop their
children’s person skills by facilitating socialization went beyond appropriate waiting skills to
maintaining social connections.
145
Intentionally promoting social connections. Working and stay-at-home mothers used
technology to promote social connections for themselves and their children. Some stay-at-home
mothers used FaceTime to talk to relatives or their husband while at work. Katherine, a working
mother, used texting to stay connected with her husband, “working long hours like we do can
definitely you know, lead you to miss the other person, you know, you still want to have a
connection with your spouse.” While at work Katherine also sent emails to her daughter’s
InnoTab so that her daughter could feel connected to her.
Mothers used their technology preferences to promote intentionality in their technology
decisions in order to facilitate socialization for themselves and for their children. Mothers
facilitated their personal socialization by staying connected with others and limiting the screen
time and types of technology-related socialization. To facilitate the socialization of their
children, mothers decided how their children should learn to wait, which social interactions fit
with technology, and how to use technology to stay connected to family. Amid these elements of
social learning, mothers promoted intentionality in how they developed their person
characteristics and that of their children through information-seeking and learning.
Facilitating learning. Mothers demonstrated intentionality in their personal technology
preferences for technology-facilitated learning (performance expectancy, UTAUT model;
Venkatesh et al., 2003). Mothers chose to read blogs rather than books for information seeking.
Amanda explained, “Blogs really are the amount of time I have right now.” Yet blogs and online
information seeking made some mothers feel overwhelmed. Aryn used online resources for
recipes and creative ways to teach her girls sounds and letters, but she felt “there’s just so much
information available so many things to learn that I feel overwhelmed.” Kamile shared this
perception but felt technology brought information that “really opens my options as far as
146
learning and growth and development as like a person.” Both younger and older mothers sorted
through the quantities of online information by comparing ideas to their own situational
reflections or information-seeking purposes. Amanda demonstrated her intentionality of purpose
when she wanted to learn a broth recipe, “I don't wanna read ten or twenty or fifty other people's
recipes. Just show me a good one.” Her intentionality of developing person characteristics is seen
in her conclusion, “I'm a learner, I want to learn, I want to research but at the expense of what?”
Her desire to develop personal morality by not taking valuable time away from her family
produced intentionality in her time expenditure for information-seeking.
Learning through experience. Some mothers valued learning without technology and
through experience. Sibel used situational reflection to explain her desire to gather information
through books and experience, “I’m probably like the cutoff for people who know how to do
everything the old-fashioned way.” Sibel and Shay shared the view of some older mothers about
intentionally reading a book through non-digital means. Shay explained, “I think there's nothing
like reading a real book as opposed to reading something on a Kindle.” This personal preference
was one that Shay transferred to her technology decisions for her boys. Like Shay, Cala valued
print books but only for a certain period of time and not for herself. She valued digital learning
for herself but thought young children should have their first learning experiences from a real
book, “I’m not going to hand my baby my phone to turn the pages and feel the colors and then
chew on it . . . There are certain elements that, like, their brain needs to learn about through the
real thing.” As Cala’s explanation suggests, mothers had technology preferences for themselves
and for their children concerning how and when technology can facilitate learning. Yet mothers
acknowledged that their intentionality in their child’s technology use was tempered by their
child’s natural desire to watch and learn.
147
Learning through unintentional modeling. Mothers believed their children are learning
about technology by watching others. Kameya believed her daughter learned how to SnapChat
and take selfies from watching teenagers at their church. When I explored this concept further,
and asked her about how her daughter might pick up on her technology preferences, her
reflection expressed amazement at her daughter’s implicit technology preference learning:
It’s just interesting, interesting to see, my niece, my husband, myself have a big
influence—like she said “Mommy is that going on Facebook?”—You’re three, why do
you know what Facebook is? Ok is Mommy and Daddy on Facebook too much or the
teenagers around you, are they on Facebook? Yeah okay no.
Kameya’s conclusion, “Yeah okay no,” expressed a view of younger and older mothers to
intentionally limit what technology they expose their children to.
Mothers told me that they limited their child’s technology exposure to mostly educational
TV or educational apps, but both older and younger mothers revealed that their children had
another kind of exposure through unintended modeling whereby their children knew their phone
password, how to use apps on their smartphone, how to find and download videos on YouTube,
and how to turn on and operate gaming and other entertainment devices around the home. In an
attempt to understand their child’s learning, some mothers situationally reflected that their
children were much more tech savvy than they were at this age. Katherine reflected, “When I
was three I was starting to read, you know, playing outside a lot, making mud pies . . . whereas
my daughter she already knows how to navigate a smartphone.” When I asked mothers how their
children were picking up technology knowledge and perceptions, Anita expressed the view of
many mothers, “They’ve watched, it’s what we’ve done in our house, so they know how to do
it.” Ella recognized the power of her own technology modeling in her children’s lives and added,
148
“I think kids just acclimate to whatever technology is at their fingertips.” Mothers were
implicitly teaching their preschool children technology preferences and technology skills without
fully realizing it while they endeavored to intentionally limit their children’s exposure to
technology used for educational purposes.
Learning through intentionality. Mothers intentionally used technology to facilitate
(performance expectancy, UTAUT model; Venkatesh et al., 2003) their child’s letter learning,
reading, and math skills. ABC mouse was a favorite letter learning game app; mothers felt it was
easy for their children to use and kept their children’s attention. LeapPad and LeapFrog had less
appeal according to mothers. They felt their preschoolers were too young to fully know how to
use it and that the activities did not hold their children’s attention. Beyond learning games,
mothers provided educational shows using Apple TV, PBS and NetFlix.
Mothers did not let their children choose for themselves when the TV would be on and
what they would watch. Most mothers limited their children’s TV viewing to an hour or less a
day and paid for cable or streaming services that allowed them to search for and select what
shows they felt were educational and appealing to their children. In a focus group, Katherine
mentioned that when her daughter watches TV it is educational shows like Daniel Tiger’s
Neighborhood and Super Y. As with other technology devices, mothers promoted intentionality
and facilitated learning by controlling their children’s TV access and content consumption.
Amid these various technology-related learning options, older and younger mothers
expressed concern about using technology in a way that might interfere with their children’s
process learning. Kameya, a younger mother, wanted her daughter to learn how to count and
calculate without using a calculation app. She explained there “has to be two sides . . . time
where she can use her mind, use her hands, color and play, and other times where she has to use
149
the technology.” Mothers’ perceptions promoted intentional technology decisions whether they
would use technology or not to help their children with process learning.
Mothers’ technology preferences and decision-making for their children demonstrated
two types of intentionality. Some mothers turned to technology as the instructional expert in
preparing their child for preschool. Fiona’s personal use of technology as an instructional
authority on learning American culture and learning English transferred to her technology
preferences for her son’s learning, “Just like in Mexico, you go to school . . . when I am doing
things, my son is on the tablet, games, and the same with the television.” Fiona is using
technology to help her son improve his English speaking before he goes to preschool.
Conversely, some mothers believed they were the educators, using apps and devices as a support
to their learning interactions with their children. Lainey expressed concern that her son
“gravitated toward” computer learning because she wanted to be the one to teach him “through
human interaction.” Maya preferred native language interactions to teach her daughter how to
speak English. She used an English language TV show for one hour “not every day” to support
her daughter’s English language learning. Amanda used situational, real-time interactions to
teach her boys their letters and numbers, but she used YouTube videos as a support to answer her
boys’ nature questions, “They could see it, and learn, and that’s where I appreciate technology.”
Both technology preferences and the resulting technology decisions demonstrated mothers’
intentionality in developing their child’s person characteristics through learning. Mothers further
demonstrated their intentionality to develop person characteristics in the way they managed time
and monitored content for themselves and for their children.
Managing time and monitoring content. Mothers promoted intentionality in their
technology use and that of their children through time management. When I asked Kamile about
150
being a working mom and overseeing her daughters’ technology use, she reflected, “Balancing
being a working mom and being a stay-at-home mom is really challenging and I don’t have
anyone older who is like, ‘You know like, when I had little kids, you know . . .’ Like I don’t—
that doesn’t exist. So, um, we’re really paving our own path, figuring out how to do it right
now.” Kamile’s technology decision cycle began with valuing her individuality as both a
working and stay-at-home mother. Next, she reflected situationally on the lack of guidance from
the past experience of others. Finally, her last statement merges all three construct by using
words like “paving” to indicate her intentionality, and “we” and “our own” to describe her
decision-making individuality, and “how to do it right now” as a situational reflection about the
immediacy of her technology decision-making. Both working and stay-at-home mothers created
their “own path” of technology intentionality through merged time management for themselves
and their children. Between one and two hours a day, spread out at varying times of the day,
mothers facilitated their children’s technology use for entertainment or education purposes to
keep their children occupied so they could get work done. While their children were using
technology, working mothers answered emails, performed online tasks to meet employer
demands (performance expectancy, UTAUT model; Venkatesh et al., 2003), or took a break
from work and mothering to peruse the Internet or social media. Some working mothers like
Cala and Katherine limited their screen time at home and chose to do housework or enjoy
hobbies while their children were using technology. In a focus group, Katherine mentioned she
crochets during her daughter’s technology use because “I’m burnt out, if I look at another screen,
I feel like my head is going to explode, you know?” For stay-at-home mothers, having their child
using technology at various points of the day for an hour or two meant they could get housework
151
done. Some stay-at-home mothers shared conflicted feelings of pragmatism and guilt about their
technology decisions for themselves and their children. Lexie reflected:
There have been times where I've felt really guilty, where, like during naptimes, it’s like
just, hey, go watch yet another movie, because I just need that time by myself, and um
I've moaned to my mother, how, I just go, “I'm not a good mom” and she says, “Well do
you get things done?” “Well, yes, I get things done, I got the bathroom cleaned this time
during naptime” and she goes, “Well!” and so I know my mom would.
Lexie’s reflection described her technology decision cycle which began with her intentionality to
let her children use more technology so that she could engage in tech or non-tech activities for
herself, followed by situational reflection providing the confirmation “my mom would” that
supported the value she places on the individuality of her technology decision for herself and for
her child. Mothers’ technology preferences promoted intentionality in their technology decisions
for time management and monitoring technology content.
Mothers monitored the age appropriateness and morality of technology content for their
children. Both in the individual interviews and confirmed later in focus group sharing, all
participants believed they were the most “strict” person who made technology decisions for their
child. Ella described her role as, “I’m definitely the warden on at least technology.” As a result,
several mothers (n = 5) remarked on the leniency of husbands and/or extended family who let
their children use too much technology or watch content that the mothers deemed inappropriate.
Married mothers felt their husbands were receptive to their technology preferences and
technology decisions to control their child’s technology content. Rilee remembered a TV show
her husband started to watch with their son, “I had to let him know that was probably not age
appropriate for a three year old, so he just hadn’t thought about it, and he was happy to comply.”
152
A few mothers, like Lexie, relied on their husbands’ knowledge of super human cartoons and
children’s shows like Power Rangers to promote intentionality in monitoring their children’s
technology content.
As mothers promoted intentionality in their children’s technology use by monitoring
content, they worried about online access and the ease with which their children could see
explicit or sexually suggestive material through pop-ups. Several mothers (n = 4) mentioned their
subscriptions to child-specific monitoring software, but it was not without limitations. To engage
their own personal safeguards, mothers previewed educational games, TV shows, and movies to
judge content appropriateness for their children.
Mothers expressed a technology preference to judge the appropriateness of content based
on their children’s developing person characteristics. Sibel previews the movies her daughter
watches because she “is like very sensitive to stuff.” Her daughter’s emotional sensitivity
facilitated Sibel’s intentionality to not let her daughter watch the movie Frozen. Sibel is adamant
in her technology decision, and demands extended family honor her decision. Sibel related an
exchange she had with her own mother, “I told her, ‘Do not under any circumstances,’ because
she like stays a day a week when I work, and I said, ‘Do not, under any circumstance—you are
not to show her Frozen.’ And she thinks I’m nuts.” Beyond monitoring content, mothers’
technology preferences and intentional decision-making was part of a collaborative process
concerning what devices and apps became a part of the home environment.
Evaluating need. Younger and older married mothers collaborated with their husband
about purchasing or upgrading devices and/or apps. When it came time to upgrade her phone,
Kameya collaborated with her husband about the speed, screen size, and color (e.g., “Can it
come in pink?”). Many mothers recounted similar collaboration scenarios in which they led in
153
determining usage and/or content and their husbands led in technology selection. Katherine
explained this collaboration process, “He leads the way, I did the thorough investigation portion
of it, and we made a decision based off of that together.” Typically, husbands purchased the
device that best represented both their preferences. Anita, an older mother, was one of a few
mothers who preferred to research and purchase devices for the family, “I just understand the
technology, like, I find the buys, I find the deals, and I have the time to search for them.”
Whether mothers were collaborating about or purchasing technology, their technology
preferences guided their intentionality in deciding what technology supported their mothering
role.
High, median, and lower income mothers evaluated their technology needs and that of
their children similarly based on performance (performance expectancy; UTAUT model,
Venkatesh et al., 2003) more than cost. When I asked mothers what devices they could not live
without and why, most chose their phone. Anita explained, “If I lost my phone all of a sudden,
I’m like, like you feel choked.” Younger mothers, regardless of economic status, appreciated the
“slip in my pocket” convenience and multiple-task performance of smartphones. Some older
mothers, like Sibel, equated the simplicity of an “old timey cell phone” with convenience as the
most important measure of performance.
Mothers used their personal technology preferences to promote intentionality in their
technology decisions for their children. When asked if they could own only one device for their
children what it would be, most mothers chose tablet devices for their children because of the
convenience and performance of touch screen. Rilee was one of the few mothers who preferred a
MacBook for her son over a tablet. He has an iPad that was a gift from his grandparents. When I
154
asked Rilee about why she would rather her son have a MacBook, her response revealed how her
technology preferences promoted intentionality in her technology decisions for her son:
I’m just not a fan of the tablet and maybe it’s because I haven’t used it as much, but I like
typing, and I have the smartphone that has the touch screen and I hate it . . . but I can see
for my son who’s three, touch screen is a lot easier. He can pull up the game all by
himself. He doesn’t need me to turn it on he can touch, you know. He knows letters. If it
says “touch this letter, find this number” he can totally do that by himself.
Rilee’s technology decision cycle for her son began with her valuing her own individuality “I’m
just not a fan of the tablet;” then she situationally reflected that “I have the smartphone that has
the touch screen” which formed a technology preference “I hate it.” Her technology decision
cycle ended with promoting intentionality “but I can see for my son who’s three, touch screen is
a lot easier.” Whether mothers were evaluating their own technology needs or that of their
children, their intentionality demonstrated the value mothers place on their own individuality in
making technology decisions and the value they place on helping their children develop their
own individuality.
Valuing Individuality
The third research question asked what factors influence how a mother ascribes meaning
to her preschool age child’s use of technology. Valuing individuality is a mother’s reaction to the
context of changing technology whereby she values individuality of technology use for herself
and for her child. The value a mother ascribes to her child’s technology use is derived from her
personal valuing of technology individuality in herself as well as in her child. Perceived changes
in distal and immediate contexts (PPCT model; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006) were the
155
factors that connect how a mother values individuality in herself and ascribes meaning to her
child’s expression of individuality in technology use.
Context characteristics. Mothers valued their personal expression of individuality in
their technology decisions and intentionally gave their children opportunities to develop
individuality in their technology decisions based on their perception of how technology
innovation will prompt change in current and future contexts. As a twenty year old, Leticia, the
youngest mother in the study, provided situational reflection on changing contexts:
In this upcoming generation I’m noticing, like, from when I was in high school, we had
limited technology and we thought that technology was amazing, and then now, it’s like
they have new technology and every day the world is just completely changing.
Situationally reflecting on the innovations of the present, Cala imagined a future where
technology will “become so integrated in society that we’re gonna have a really hard time living
without it.” Younger and older mothers used situational reflection on current technology
innovation to make technology decisions that honor their individuality and the individuality they
wish to develop in their children as a preparation for the digital unknowns of a changing social
context. Fiona gave a valuable perspective about changing social context when she described
how the US was “more advanced because the people, little by little, are losing everything to
technology.” Anita reflected on parenting and the prevalence of technology, “It’s funny how
nowadays my parenting decisions are based around technology, you know, like some of the
technology decisions I make are based on w-w-what will we need for our kids, you know?”
Several mothers (n = 9) believed that their technology decisions for their children would help the
child grow up to individualize their own technology use to the point of being more advanced and
knowledgeable than either parent. Amanda reflected about her boys, “I feel like that will
156
happen—that one day you know they’re gonna surpass us.” Thus, mothers made technology
decisions that value individuality in themselves and in their children as preparation for a future
where both must embrace innovation.
Embracing innovation. Mothers valued individuality in their technology decisions by
embracing innovation apart from the macrosystem influences of national interest. In the focus
groups, mothers shared their perception that America’s technology use was behind Asian nations
but comparable to other nations. Rilee stays in contact with missionaries in Asia who tell her
“that we’re a little bit behind as far as the actual equipment.” Rilee and other participating
mothers did not let national perception influence their technology intention or technology
decisions for their children. Instead, they perceived that local schools would know and teach
what technology skills their children would need to function effectively in a changing digital
context. Mothers exercised individuality in their technology decisions by choosing what schools
they thought could accomplish this and using technology to get their preschool children ready to
begin school.
Mothers sought trusted individuals, friends or family with older children attending local
schools, to understand the innovative ways local schools use iPads in the classrooms. During the
focus groups, mothers shared that what they knew about local school’s technology use
encouraged them to use technology to get their child ready to start school; however, their
intentionality was tempered by their valuation of individuality. Some mothers thought their child
would pick up what they needed to know for school without needing direct instruction. Aryn
explained, “It’s definitely the age we live in, so they have to know it, but they learn it so fast! I
don’t know if it’s from watching me, but they definitely figure it out on their own.” Aryn’s
technology decision to not purposely use technology to prepare her daughters to begin school
157
began with situational refection “It’s definitely the age we live in,” then she promoted
intentionality in recognizing “they have to know it” which produced value in her perception of
her daughters’ individuality to “figure it out on their own.”
Mothers not only valued their children’s individuality in learning new technology but
also in their future cell phone use. Mothers formed technology preferences by situationally
reflecting on when they got a cell phone growing up. Anita said, “I didn’t have one until I was
fifteen, but now we’re considering giving our elementary kids cell phones.” Anita’s use of the
word “we” to denote her perception of society shows the iterative nature of situational reflection
from personal perceptions of the past to personal perceptions of society in the present. Reflecting
on the past, most mothers mentioned that they received their own cell phones in middle school or
later on in life. Younger mothers related that their parents bought them cell phones for safety
reasons. Several mothers (n = 4) used these personal experiences to plan on purchasing cell
phones for their children in middle or high school. Both older and younger mothers thought their
children’s first cell phone should have limited access to the Internet. Whether it was preparing
their child for the technology innovations of school or contemplating when to give their child a
cell phone, mothers valued their own individuality as they situationally reflected on their own
experiences and intentionally made technology decisions that recognized their child’s
individuality. The opinions of others confirmed mothers’ desires to value individuality in their
technology decisions for themselves and for their children.
Resisting group thinking. Mothers valued individuality by making technology decisions
contrary to their perception of social norms. In this study some mothers’ perception of social
norms were from other parents’ actions. Leticia resisted group thinking through situational
reflection:
158
Like my mom, she gave me my phone when she thought I was responsible, but like most
parents I see now a days just give their kid a phone just because they feel like everybody
else had it and they want their kid to feel like they got something too. I feel like you can’t
really predict. It’s whenever they’re ready.
Leticia’s technology decision to resist group thinking began with past “my mom” and present
“now a days” situational reflection; then she valued individuality in her own technology
preference “I feel like” and ended her decision by merging intentionality with valuing her
children’s individuality “It’s whenever they’re ready.” Becca resisted group thinking when she
explained the view of other parents and cell phones, “I know some parents who let their kids
have cell phones, um, when they’re really young, and I, we don’t plan on doing that.” The shift
from “I” to “we” suggests the very personal value mothers place in their own technology
decisions situated in collaboration with their husband.
Some mothers valued individuality and resisted group thinking about using technology
for their children’s learning. Lainey explained, “I know tons of other people who that’s how they
learned all of that stuff is through a screen, and we didn’t want to do that for our kids.” Lainey’s
technology decision to resist group thinking began with situational reflection on “I know tons of
people,” then intentionality “we didn’t want to do” which brought about individual value “for
our kids.”
Several mothers (n = 7) valued individuality and resisted group thinking about
technology and morality. Amanda mentioned the violence, gore, and sexuality that are on TV,
video games, and movies. She explained the individuality of her technology decisions for her
boys through situational reflection, “They’re going to see enough of that in the world, but they
don’t need to see that in our home.” When I asked her to help me understand her individual sense
159
of morality, she explained, “We want their foundation to be on Christ, and we want their
foundation to be on what is right based on what God says.” As I explored this perception of
morality with Amanda and other mothers (n = 4) who expressed resistance to group thinking
through moral values found in the Bible, I found they valued their individuality in technology
decisions to a greater degree because their morality was based on the changing context of their
fuller personal application of biblical principles. Whether mothers resisted group thinking about
cell phones, technology-based learning, or issues related to morality, they wanted their individual
technology decisions to transfer to their child.
Transferring training. Mothers prepared their child for a technology-based future
through the child’s development of individual technology choices connected to their upbringing
in the home. Cala used situational reflection to articulate her perspective on the generational
transfer of training to her daughter, “I learned from my mom and so, um, like it or not, I know
I’m setting an example for her, so I think she’ll probably do the same things, same decisions that
I’m making now.” Mothers hope their children will adopt their technology decision boundaries
and individualize them for the future.
Mothers valued the transfer of morality to their children’s technology use. With regard to
technology use in the future, Aryn believed trust was an important moral value that would
continue to guide “the way we raise our family.” Other mothers mentioned the importance of
instilling moral responsibility in how and when their children use technology. Rilee explained
the transfer of training she desires when her son uses technology, “We want to work hard to
make sure he doesn’t ever feels entitled to a certain piece of technology because that’s what
everybody else has versus ‘this is what our family needs and this is what our family can provide’
and then we would like to instill a big sense of responsibility in being responsible with it and
160
consequences when he’s not.” With regard to how her children use technology, Cala believed the
moral training she is doing now will transfer to her girls and lessen the need for intensive
technology supervision, “I would rather hope to instill a sense of responsibility and propriety in
my children, so that I’m not having to monitor exactly what they do and every interaction.”
Amanda shared how she hoped when her boys had families of their own they might adopt similar
technology standards, “I would hope that they would be similar, umm, yeah, that ultimately
they’ll see value in what we did and why we did what we did.” Amanda’s appraisal of her
technology decisions shows her situational reflection “ultimately,” her intentionality and
individuality in “what we did,” and her desire that her boys will “see value” as they individualize
and transfer the moral technology training they received into their own parenthood. As mothers
valued individuality in their technology decisions for themselves and their children with the
intent to prepare them for the future, they feared technology-related unknowns in their children’s
lives.
Worrying about unknowns. Younger and older mothers worried about fostering their
child’s individuality through access to a wide array of devices that were properly monitored. In
response, some mothers pondered the idea of homeschooling their children because they did not
know if schools could offer their children the access to different devices with the safeguards
necessary to properly digitally educate their child. Anita believed her children had more access
to different devices in the home and that schools “haven’t become as advanced as we are in our
homes.” Katherine shared this view and in a focus group explained her concern for her daughter,
“Part of the reason we decided to homeschool her is that we looked at some of the local public
schools at their use of technology and the lack of understanding or the lack of monitoring on the
part of the school, for children who use it, and we’re very concerned about that so we’d rather
161
she do it safely in our home.” Katherine’s technology decision cycle shows situational reflection
on “the local public schools,” parental individuality and intentionality in “we decided to
homeschool,” and promoting individuality in “we’d rather she do it safely in our home.” Mothers
wanted to develop their children’s individuality through the use of various devices in an actively
monitored environment
Some mothers worried about cyberbullying. Fiona was afraid that as her son grew up in
American schools she would not know his friends and would not know if he was being bullied.
When I asked her what advice she would give Latina and American mothers, she advised,
“Always see what they are watching, what they are playing, what they are doing, who they are
talking to… Our world now is dangerous, one never knows what’s being said.” Kameya
described how she plans to confront the unknowns of her daughter’s future technology use
through accountability:
I’m gonna be checking her—“I’m gonna be on you like white on rice, honey,” I’m going
to be checking everything. I’m going to know everything if I need to print out stuff I will.
I will have every password. I will know. You will know there’s a time, a curfew, that
you’re not to be on that cell phone, but I also think of safety, but no, if there’s ever a time
that they break that trust or break that understanding or things get out of hand, oh
mommy will definitely have that phone, not a question about it.
Mothers confronted their concerns about technology unknowns by promoting individuality and
monitoring their children’s technology use. Most mothers tried not to think too far ahead into the
unknowns of their children’s future but instead focused on using technology to develop their
children’s individuality as a safeguard to the changing context of digital society.
162
Summary
This chapter began with a demographic description of study participants including their
life situations, technology use, and technology perspective for themselves and others related to
the home environment. Study results were visually represented with a theoretical model that
expands and connects elements of the PPCT model of bioecological theory (Bronfenbrenner &
Ceci, 1993, 1994) and the UTAUT model of technology intention and use. These connections
were developed through a data narrative of study results organized thematically in relation to the
theoretical model and the three research questions to explain the three-step technology decision
process mothers use when making technology decisions for themselves and their preschool age
children.
In the microsystem of the home environment, mothers’ technology decisions followed a
multi-dimensional cyclic process of reflecting situationally, promoting intentionality, and
valuing individuality in themselves and in their children. Time was a factor in the situational
reflection mothers used to form technology preferences. Developing person characteristics
connected mothers’ technology preferences to the technology decision process and promoted
intentionality in their technology decisions for themselves and for their children. Perceived
changes in context prompted mothers to value individuality in themselves and ascribe meaning
to developing their children’s individuality in technology use as a proactive preparation for an
increasingly digital world.
163
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Overview
The Process-Person-Context-Time (PPCT) model (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998)
describes how human development occurs through proximal process interactions within
environmental systems, but this research does not explain how an individual makes technology
decisions. Research conceptualizes how an individual selects and uses technology through the
determinant and moderator factors of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
(UTAUT) model (Venkatesh et al., 2003), but it does not explain how an individual selects
technology for another. Research describes how teachers use the Technological Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006) to make technology
decisions in the classroom for themselves and for students, but the pedagogical and classroom
focus of this research did not provide insight into mothers’ technology decisions for their
preschool age children in the home environment. To fill this research gap, this systematic
grounded theory study explored the technology decision process mothers use when making
technology decisions for their preschool age children in the home environment. The study
identified three new constructs that shape a mother’s technology decision-making for herself
and for her child to create a theoretical model that expands and connects elements of the PPCT
model of bioecological theory (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993, 1994) and the UTAUT model of
technology intention and use.
In this chapter, I summarize and discuss the study findings in relation to current
literature and the PPCT and UTAUT models. I describe the study implications and limitations.
The chapter concludes with recommendations for future research.
164
Summary of Findings
Mothers’ technology decisions involve the developmental proximal processes of the
PPCT model (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006) and the determinant and moderator factors
of the UTAUT model (Venkatesh et al., 2003) through a multi-dimensional process involving
three new technology decision constructs: reflecting situationally, promoting intentionality, and
valuing individuality. The theoretical study model (see Figure 1 in Chapter Four) illustrates these
connections in the microsystem of the home environment. The first research question asked what
factors influence how a mother of a preschool age child forms personal technology preferences.
The model shows time was a factor in how a mother reflected situationally on her past and
present technology use to form personal technology preferences. Mothers contextualized their
personal technology preferences as they reflected situationally on the facilitating and limiting
conditions of growing up with technology, their past home and school technology use, how they
learn technology through trial and error, and how they perceive and intend to use technology.
The second research question asked how a mother’s personal technology preferences and
technology use affects her technology decisions for her preschool age child. The model shows
developing person characteristics was the factor promoting intentionality in a mother’s
technology decisions and connecting a mother’s personal technology preferences to the
technology decision process she used for herself and for her child. Mothers developed their own
person characteristics and those of their children by making intentional technology decisions for
themselves and their children regarding socialization, learning, time management, technology
content, and technology needs.
The third research question asked what factors influence how a mother ascribes meaning
to her preschool age child’s use of technology. The model shows context was the factor that
165
connects how a mother values individuality in herself and ascribes meaning to her child’s
expression of individuality in technology use. Mothers’ perceptions of the changing contexts of
digital innovation made them value technology individuality in themselves and their children
with regard to embracing technological innovation, resisting group thinking, transferring
training, and worrying about the unknown to proactively inform accountability. Mothers valued
the development of their children’s technology individuality because they think it is the best way
they can prepare their children to successfully leverage technology in an unknown future of
digital advancement.
Discussion
Data analysis revealed mothers’ technology decisions for their preschool age children
involved developmental proximal processes (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998) and determinant
and moderator factors (Venkatesh et al., 2003) of technology intention and use through a multidimensional process involving three new technology decision constructs: reflecting situationally,
promoting intentionality, and valuing individuality.
Reflecting Situationally
Situational reflection is a mother’s contextualization of time through past and present
technology use whereby she forms technology preferences. Time was a factor in mothers’
formation of technology preferences based on their situational reflections on society’s changing
technology expectations both in the past and present. This study extends the concept of
macrotime (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006, 2008) by recognizing changing sociotechnological expectations that contextualized how mothers reflected situationally on the past
and present. This extension of macrotime connects to technology models that assert that an
166
individual’s technology intention and use will “evolve over time” (Venkatesh et al., 2003, p.
468).
Mothers contextualized time and reflected situationally on the facilitating and limiting
conditions of their past and present technology use. This study confirms that facilitating
conditions are a determinant of technology use behavior (Venkatesh et al., 2003) and suggests
that facilitating conditions have a direct effect on intention. Mothers’ situational reflections on
facilitating conditions produced technology preferences that influenced both their intention to
use technology and their subsequent technology use.
Mothers’ reflections on their past home technology use confirmed experience as a
moderator of social influence and intention to use technology (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Mothers
remembered their technology experiences growing up and their own mothers’ technology
preferences and reacted by transferring or changing them to form current personal technology
preferences for themselves and for their children.
Mothers’ reflections on past technology use in schools suggests experience is a moderator
of the relationship between performance expectancy and intention to use technology (this is not a
relationship represented in the UTAUT model; Venkatesh et al., 2003) Mothers reflected
situationally on past school-related actions such as online researching skills and transferred these
experiences to present technology preferences for online researching in a mothering role.
Mothers’ experience and past performance expectancy beliefs that technology could assist their
school-related tasks transferred to their current belief that technology could aid their mothering
tasks.
Mothers’ age and technology experience were moderators of effort expectancy and
intention to use technology (Morris & Venkatesh 2000). Mothers reflected situationally on
167
learning technology through trial and error which developed divergent technology preferences.
Older mothers’ past technology experiences and effort expectancy produced technology
preferences for simpler devices. Younger mothers’ experience and effort expectancy developed
technology preferences for multifunctional devices. Mothers’ perceptions of technology making
life easier supports the moderating relationship of experience on effort expectancy and intention
to use technology.
Mothers’ technology perceptions and intentions support research understandings about
the ability of an individual to exert power over their own development through proximal
interactions (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993). This study suggests individuals control their
development through human to object interactions. Mothers’ situational reflections on
technology experiences and interactions led some to perceive technology as overwhelming
which formed technology preferences and intentions to focus or limit their technology
interactions.
Mothers’ technology perceptions and intentions included a reciprocal process of
facilitating conditions whereby mothers felt supported in their technology use (either by a spouse
or by their own trial and error) so that they believed they could support and facilitate their
children’s technology use. This study suggests a non-linear interpretation of the determinant
construct of facilitating conditions (Venkatesh et al., 2003) by describing a reciprocal process by
which individuals who receive help can reciprocate and become a technology support to others.
This reciprocal interaction of facilitating conditions extends research understandings
(Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993) about human interactions to include human to human with object
interactions while also extending research understandings (Venkatesh et al., 2003) about
facilitating conditions and intention to use technology.
168
Promoting Intentionality
Promoting intentionality describes a mother’s development of person characteristics in
herself and in her child by connecting her personal technology preferences and use to her
technology decision process for her child. Developing person characteristics was the factor that
connected mothers’ technology preferences to their personal technology decision process.
Mothers’ force, resource, and demand characteristics (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993) were
informed by their intentionality to engage with technology to meet their personal mothering
goals with regard to socialization, learning, time management, technology content, and
technology needs.
Mothers used technology with intentionality to facilitate limited personal socialization.
Some mothers imposed technology time limits while others limited certain technology
activities—regardless of method, mothers activated their generative force characteristics
(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998) through delayed gratification to actuate their personal
mothering with technology image. A few mothers’ technology image was informed by husbands
or pediatricians that warned against extended screen time, but most mothers used their own
situational reflection to promote intentionality in the technology socialization they deemed best
for themselves in the role of mother. Mothers’ intentionality in sanctioning their technology
socialization extends research about the determinant of social influence (Venkatesh et al., 2003)
to research about person characteristics in human development (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993)
by theorizing that mothers use situational reflection to create a technology image of the mother
they want to be and then use their technology preferences to promote intentionality to meet their
technology and mothering goals.
169
While mothers were developing their own person characteristics through technology
decisions about socialization, they were actively promoting technology intentionality in their
children’s socialization. Mothers reflected situationally on their own childhood to form
technology preferences and technology decisions that facilitated and controlled their children’s
technology access and use. An example of this was mothers’ intentionality and differing views
about teaching their children to wait with or without technology at a restaurant. Mothers’
situational reflections informed their intentionality to make technology decisions for their
children that included or excluded technology from their children’s social interactions. This
technology-related facilitation and control by one individual for another expands existing
research (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993) about the relational controls of proximal interactions to
include relational and object controls in proximal processes. Mothers’ technology intentionality
for their children’s socialization involved teaching their children to know when technology fit a
social interaction such as playing or expressing thankfulness. A mother’s personal technology
preferences informed the intentionality of her technology decisions about her child writing a
thank you note or sending an email or playing using technology or playing outside without
technology.
Mothers demonstrated intentionality in their decisions about using technology in their
personal learning development and information-seeking. Some mothers preferred to read blogs
or use Pinterest, while others purposely read a print book rather than reading from a device. The
commonality in these approaches was mothers’ expansion of personal resource characteristics
(Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993) through increased knowledge and experience gained by
intentional inclusion or exclusion of technology. Variations in mothers’ perception of technology
performance expectancy (Venkatesh et al., 2003) were determined by learning intention and
170
moderated by experience and perception of time. Whereas other studies (Morris & Venkatesh
2000; Venkatesh et al., 2003) found age to be a moderating variable in determining performance
expectancy and intention to use technology, in this study both older and younger mothers
believed technology could assist them in learning. The moderators that influenced their decision
to use technology for learning were positive or negative experiences using technology to learn
and the time available to learn. This finding extends research understandings by recognizing a
mother’s perception of microtime (Bronfenbrenner & Morris 1998, 2006) as a moderator of
whether she thinks technology will be the best way (performance expectancy; Venkatesh et al.,
2003) for her to learn.
The intentionality mothers displayed in their personal learning technology decisions
transferred to their technology decisions about their children’s learning. Mothers used TV, their
own smartphone or tablet, or learning devices such as LeapPad to facilitate their children’s letter
learning and other basic skills. Mothers engaged in a proximal process of relationship and object
where their reflections on learning-related interactions with their children informed their
technology preferences and decisions for their children. Mothers decided whether technology
was the best way for their children to learn (performance expectancy; Venkatesh et al., 2003).
Their intentionality was demonstrated in two ways. Some mothers preferred to be the teacher and
intentionally chose not to use technology for their child’s learning or chose to use technology to
augment or supplement their child’s learning. Other mothers used technology as the expert
means to direct their child’s learning. For mothers wanting their children to learn English,
technology was the expert tutor. If a mother decided to use technology for her child’s learning
she reflected situationally on her current learning-related interactions with her child to decide
whether a device was easy for her child to use (effort expectancy; Venkatesh et al., 2003), the
171
child enjoyed using it (experience; Venkatesh et al., 2003), or the device was age appropriate
(age; Venkatesh et al., 2003). These situational reflections developed mothers’ technology
preferences for their children which informed the intentionality and individuality of their
technology decisions for their children. These technology decisions included what device to use
and when and for how long the child could use the device. These connections between the
determinants and moderators of the UTAUT model and the proximal processes of the PPCT
model add to current understandings of technology preference (Jaafar et al., 2014; Muthitcharoen
et al., 2011) and technology intention and use (Venkatesh et al., 2003) by identifying how
proximal relationships influence the intention of one individual to choose technology for another.
The intentionality of mothers’ technology decisions was expressed through context
factors affecting both her and her child with regard to managing time and monitoring content. In
the home environment, both working and stay-at-home mothers used technology to keep their
children occupied with learning games or developmentally appropriate videos while they
accomplished home or work-related tasks (performance expectancy; Venkatesh et al., 2003).
Working and stay-at-home mothers shared a common goal to limit their time away from their
child and make the technology their child was enjoying beneficial to their social or learning
development. To that end, mothers’ intentionality with technology and time management for
themselves and for their children also transferred to their management of technology content. In
comparison to close friends or family members, mothers viewed themselves as the most “strict”
person making technology decisions for their children. Mothers used their own situational
reflections on current media or technology offerings to form technology preferences which
promoted intentionality and individuality in their technology decisions to allow or disallow
certain movies, shows on TV, or certain apps on the mother’s smartphone. The intentionality of
172
mothers’ technology decisions about time management and content monitoring in the home
context supports research understandings (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993) about the influence of
various environmental systems. Whether it was a time-related issue such as responding to an
email from work or a content-related issue such as whether or not to let a child watch the movie
Frozen, mothers reflected situationally to inform the intentionality and individuality of their
technology decisions to accept or reject exosystem and mesosystem influences.
Mothers’ evaluation of technology need confirmed performance expectancy and effort
expectancy as determiners of technology intention and use (Venkatesh et al., 2003), but not
social influence. Mothers’ situational reflection, intentionality, and individualism produced
technology decisions that controlled exosystem and mesosystem social influences
(Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993). Mothers’ technology decision process for themselves and for
their children superseded social influences about tech image.
Valuing Individuality
Valuing individuality is a mother’s reaction to the context of changing technology
whereby she values individuality of technology use for herself and for her child. Context was the
factor that connected how mothers value individuality in themselves and how they ascribe
meaning to their children’s expression of individuality in technology use. This supports research
on the reciprocal interactions between individuals and systems of context (Bronfenbrenner &
Morris, 1998, 2006), but this study furthers these understandings by recognizing mothers make
technology decisions for themselves and for their children being mindful of the present and the
future. Mothers reflected situationally on current technology innovations and developed personal
technology preferences that informed their intentionality and displayed their individuality in
choosing new technology.
173
Mothers’ technology decision process embraced innovation for themselves and for their
children apart from macrosystem influences (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2006) of national
interest. Unlike literature from European countries about the pressure on parents to strengthen
national economic interests (Brynjolfsson & Saunders, 2010) or control cultural influences on
their children’s technology use (Johanson, 2010), this study found mothers perceived no
messages or pressures from government macrosystem influences in their technology decision
process. Instead, mothers perceived local schools would know and teach what their children
would need to know to meet the demands of the future.
Mothers who planned to send their children to preschool sought the experiences of
trusted individuals for their knowledge of local schools and which schools would best prepare
their children academically and technologically for the future. This study identifies a weakness in
technology intention and use models which do not explain the role of advice or second hand
experiences in the formation of technology preferences and technology decision-making of an
individual. As mothers reflected situationally on this advice they formed technology preferences
for their children that promoted intentionality and individuality in their technology decisions to
prepare their children for a particular kind of preschool experience.
While mothers sought advice from trusted individuals outside the home about local
schools, they resisted group thinking about issues such as when to buy their child a cell phone,
using technology-based learning, and issues related to morality. As mothers interacted with
others outside the home, their technology decision process (reflecting situationally, intentionally,
and individually) became an important medium for mothers to transfer their personal beliefs and
technology training to their children. This study informs research (Venkatesh et al., 2003) in
174
technology intention and use by describing the role of training and belief in the formation of an
individual’s technology preferences and experiences using technology.
Mothers confronted the unknowns of the future by making technology decisions for
themselves and for their children that valued individuality and accountability. Research of
technology intention and use (Venkatesh et al., 2003) describes the role of voluntary or
involuntary use, but not an individual’s personal technology accountability or the technology
accountability imposed by another (such as a parent) that can influence an individual’s access to
technology. This study broadens understandings about technology intention and use by
recognizing mothers’ intentions to make technology decisions to promote their children’s
individuality and technological well-being both now and in the future.
Implications
This study’s theoretical model connects elements of the PPCT model of
Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993, 1994) with the UTAUT
model through proximal processes and technology-related determinants and moderators
represented in a mother’s technology decision process of reflecting situationally, promoting
intentionality, and valuing individuality in herself and in her child. These constructs explain how
a mother makes technology decisions for herself and for her child through complex reciprocal
interactions (proximal processes; Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994) whereby she exerts will and
control over her technology intention and use (UTAUT model; Venkatesh et al., 2003) to
produce a technology environment of development (bioecological theory; Bronfenbrenner &
Ceci, 1993, 1994) for herself and for her child.
This study’s findings further empirical research on additional determinant and
moderating factors (Alharbi, 2014; Oh & Yoon, 2014) related to the UTAUT model (Venkatesh
175
et al., 2003) by identifying the situational reflection process that influences how mothers form
personal technology preferences, which informs the intentionality and individuality of their
technology decisions for themselves and for their children. This study’s explanation of mothers’
intentionality in their technology decisions provides additional research from a mother’s
perspective about the informal ICT learning in the home (Lahtinen, 2012). The value-laden
technology decisions mothers make to develop their child’s technology individuality provide the
rationale that was missing from existing research about children’s performance of specific tasks
using technology selected by adults (Couse & Chen, 2010; Isomursu et al., 2011; Lebens et al.,
2009; Ntuli & Kyei-Blankson, 2012) and about how adults introduce children to technology and
facilitate device and software use (Hollingworth et al., 2011; Mawson, 2010; Plowman et al.,
2010).
The practical implication of this study model is to help American mothers personally
assess social messages about digital immersion and parenting (Tapscott, 2008) through a greater
understanding of their technology decision process: their situational reflections about
technology, their intentionality, and their valuations of their own technology use and that of their
children. Understanding the technology decision process for themselves and their children
supports American women in their motherhood roles. Recognizing how their technology
decision process promotes both their technology individuality and that of their child promotes a
mother’s personal technology development and thoughtful technology consent practices (Block,
2012) that can encourage children’s well-being (Bronfenbrenner, 1994, 1995b, 2000, 2001;
Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998,
2006).
176
In keeping with Bronfenbrenner’s (1973, 1974, 1975, 1979) vision to develop theory that
could inform research-based public policies benefitting families and children, the implications of
this study offer recommendations for parents, education stakeholders, and technologists. At the
end of each individual interview I asked the mothers in this study, “Do you have a message for
American mothers about their technology decisions?” Taken as a whole, their responses
conveyed a fearlessness and determination to make descriptive rather than prescriptive
technology decisions for themselves and for their children. Thus, parents should welcome the
opportunities technology innovation offers to extend their situational reflection, intentionality,
and display of individuality through personal decision-making and decisions made for their
children.
American education is highly prescriptive, making the implications of this study of
particular importance to education stakeholders. As a professor of preservice teachers, I am using
the results of this study to prepare teachers who seek stronger connections between teacher and
parent technology decisions. This does not mean finding ways for teachers to educate parents
about the technology decisions that benefit their children’s learning and development—just the
opposite. The implications of this study challenge teachers and school personnel to learn from
parents and make technology decisions that synchronize with the world outside school. Rather
than making policies about personal technology use, education stakeholders should promote
personal technology decision-making that encourages teachers and students to be situationally
reflective, intentional, and individual in their technology decisions. For example, rather than
making a policy about cellphone use in the classroom, teachers should encourage cell phone use
that is individual, intentional, and reflective of the classroom environment. Encouraging students
177
to make better technology decisions begins by giving them the opportunity to make personal
technology choices.
There are implications for technologists from this study. The individualism,
intentionality, and situational reflection evident in the technology decision-making of mothers in
this study should alert technologists to the demand for broader, not more, technology choices.
For example, cable and media providers tend to focus on providing family entertainment for
consumers who are young and progressively-minded (Tryon, 2013), but what about the young
and traditionally-minded families? Technologists should reinterpret their demographic and
consumer data to provide different (not necessarily more) devices, services or applications that
can be accessed at different price points (Yelton, 2012) and better represent different technology
preferences. By offering broader technology choices across the ICT spectrum, technologists can
truly connect with user’s decision-making and technology intention.
Limitations
This study had two delimitations in participant selection. To study mothers’ technology
decisions with limited influence from formal school settings, I delimited participant selection to
mothers with an oldest child of preschool age (3-5) who did not attend a formal preschool. To
focus on mothers’ technology decisions in a parenting role, I did not analyze fathers’ technology
preferences, use, or technology decisions for their children.
The transferability of this study is limited by culture and participant selection. This study
was limited by nationality, time, and resources to the exploration of the technology decisions of
18 mothers living in urban, suburban, or rural areas located in or around a college town in central
Virginia. I recruited mothers through email correspondence with fellow professors at a private,
religious affiliated university where I teach. These professors had various community
178
connections that were invaluable in contacting a variety of mothers for maximum variation in
participant theoretical sampling. However, convenience and snowball sampling produced a
limitation in racial and ethnic composition and high and low income (see Table 1). Also, a
culture of traditional values and/or religious faith may have been shared between participating
mothers and community contacts recommended by university professors. Thus, the study has
cultural limitations based on southern locale, racial and ethnic composition, high and low
income, traditional “Bible belt” culture, and college town culture. The transferability of this
study is limited to other traditional and/or religious cultural regions or college towns in the
United States. Future research using larger samples and purposeful sampling for maximum
variation in race, ethnicity, or SES in other regions in the United States, or in other countries,
will increase the understandings afforded by this study.
Data collection was limited by mothers’ interview and focus group preferences. Two
mothers preferred an over-the-phone individual interview. Four mothers chose focus grouprelated phone interviews due to life circumstances or child-related issues that prevented them
from leaving or allowing visitors into their home. For these interviews and focus groups, I was
unable to observe and record non-verbal communication.
This study had limitations related to self-reporting. Asking mothers about their
technology use in childhood and technology-related mothering practices can be anxiety
producing. Toward the end of one individual interview, a mother let out a sigh and said, “That
wasn’t as bad as I thought it’d be.” When I laughed and questioned her further she said, “I
called my husband at lunch to say I was dreading having to tell you that my children watch too
much TV. I told him I was just going to have to lie to you—he told me not to.” We both had a
good laugh about this, and I reassured her that I wanted to record, not judge, her perspective.
179
This scenario confirms a study limitation. Despite my professional disposition and
reassurances that my purpose was to record their experience, perspective, and insight, some
mothers may have felt anxiety while self-reporting on the journaling portion of the
questionnaire, during the individual interview, or during a focus group. As I have replayed
audio and video recordings and combed over transcripts and memos, I feel confident that I
have an authentic representation of each mother’s self-reporting of technology experiences and
perspectives from which this theory of process is derived.
This study was limited by social influences related to focus group composition and
customization. By allowing mothers to self-select a focus group based on preferred date and time
the potential for diversity in each of the focus groups was maximized in terms of the distribution
of working and stay-at-home mothers, married and single mothers, younger and older mothers,
and mothers of upper, median and lower household incomes. Some focus groups were held in
my home, some focus groups were held in a participant’s home or at a participant’s church, and
four mothers chose focus group-related phone interviews (Using transcripts from recent focus
groups along with the focus group questions, I gave each mother the opportunity to respond
individually and react to others’ input. This was more of a member check than a focus group.)
Both the focus group composition and customization (meeting at my home, meeting individually
with moms in their home to tell them about the most recent focus group, non-home environment
focus groups, and focus group-related phone interviews) influenced the data through social
influences related to group norms. When mothers would bandwagon their agreement I would
rejoin, “Tell me how you might disagree with . . . ” This prompted a deepening and diversity of
mothers’ responses which helped me better understand the similarities and differences in
mothers’ technology decision process.
180
Recommendations for Future Research
Regional studies of the technology decisions of ethnically diverse mothers of preschool
age children would provide larger samples that can provide insight into how situational
reflection may be different based on culture and childhood. No Asian mothers were
represented in this study. Asian mothers may have had greater access to technology in
childhood thereby changing their situational reflection and technology use. Latina and African
American mothers were underrepresented in this study (see Table 1). Latina mothers may
situationally use technology in different ways based on cultural and family reflections. African
American mothers may have had greater access to technology at school but more up-to-date
device access at home, which may shape their technology reflections and use.
High and low income mothers were underrepresented in this study (see Table 1), with
most mothers being in median income families. Further research is needed to better understand
to what degree situational reflection, intentionality, and development of individuality is part of
the technology decision process of high and low income mothers. Greater economic resources
may offer high income mothers more opportunities to purchase a variety of devices that
promote their personal intentionality and individuality and that of their children. Low income
mothers may have fewer opportunities to promote technology intentionality and individuality
in themselves and their children due to the expense of highly functional devices and apps.
This study should be replicated with fathers (including married or single fathers) and
anyone (e.g., grandparents serving as guardians, etc.) who assumes elements of a motherhood
role. This study excluded fathers because research indicated their role was discretionary and less
defined (Brown et al., 2011; Cabrera et al., 2000). Fathers assuming elements of a motherhood
role (caretaker, nurturing and affectionate; Fischer & Anderson, 2012, p. 17) may have similar
181
situational reflections on technology as mothers but differ in how they leverage their personal
technology preferences to intentionally make technology decisions for themselves and for their
children. Exploring these differences would increase understanding of how fathers or anyone
who assumes elements of a motherhood role promote individuality in their personal technology
decisions and in the technology decisions they make for children.
Additional research could broaden the understandings afforded by this study. Qualitative
research using a case study design could enhance understandings of the technology decision
process phenomenon in specific contexts and from different perspectives (including both
parents and/or children’s perspectives). Quantitative research could test and confirm the
hypotheses this study generated such as the role of situational reflection in the formation of
technology preferences.
Summary
Mothers make technology decisions for their preschool age children based on personal
technology preferences formed through situational reflection on their past and present
technology use. Intentionality defines how mothers leverage their personal technology
preferences to develop both their person characteristics (e.g., socialization, learning, time
management) and that of their children through technology decision-making. Mothers value
their personal expression of individuality in their technology decisions and give their children
opportunities to develop individuality in their technology choices based on context. Through this
technology decision process mothers proactively prepare themselves and their children for the
unknowns of an increasingly digital world.
182
REFERENCES
Abbitt, J. T. (2011). Measuring technological pedagogical content knowledge in preservice
teacher education: A review of current methods and instruments. Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 43(4), 281-300. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/870391517?accountid=12085
Abdul Mutalib, A., Aziz, N., & Amilah Shaffiei, Z. (2011). Digital storytelling makes reading
fun and entertaining. International Journal of Computer Applications, 18(1), 20-26. doi:
10.5120/2248-2878
Ackers, M. J. (2012). Cyberbullying: Through the eyes of children and young people.
Educational Psychology in Practice, 28(2), 141-157. doi: 10.1080/02667363.2012.66535
Acosta, D. M. (2014). Tweet Up? Examining Twitter's impact on social capital and digital
citizenship in higher education. About Campus, 18(6), 10-17. doi: 10.1002/abc.21139
Adams, D., Nelson, R., & Todd, P. (1992). Perceived usefulness, ease of use and usage of
information technology: a replication. MIS Quarterly, 16(2), 227-247. doi:
10.2307/249577
Adler, R. (2006). Older Americans, broadband and the future of the net. Santa Clara, CA:
SeniorNet.
Afflerback, S., Carter, S. K., Anthony, A. K., & Grauerholz, L. (2013). Infant feeding
consumerism in the age of intensive mothering and risk society. Journal of Consumer
Culture, 13(3), 387–405. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1469540513485271
Afflerback, S., Carter, S. K., Anthony, A. K., & Grauerholz, L. (2014). Consumption rituals in
the transition to motherhood. Gender Issues, 31(1), 1-20. doi: 10.1007/s12147-014-91150
183
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1997). The role of innovation characteristics and perceived
voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decision Sciences, 28(3),
557–582. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01322.x
Aharonson, V., & Krebs, H. (2012). Prediction of response to robot-aided motor neurorehabilitation of children with cerebral palsy. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control,
7(2), 180-184. doi: 10.1016/j.bspc.2011.03.003
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J.
Beckman (Eds.). Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39). Heidelberg:
Springer.
Ajzen, I. (1989). Attitude, structure and behavior. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, and A. G.
Greenwald, (Eds.). Attitude, Structure and Function. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50(2): 179-211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Al-Barakat, A. A., & Bataineh, R. F. (2011). Preservice childhood education teachers'
perceptions of instructional practices for developing young children's interest in reading.
Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 25(2), 177-193. doi:
10.1080/02568543.2011.556520
184
Al-Qeisi, K. I., & Al-Abdallah, G. (2014). Website design and usage behaviour: An application
of the UTAUT model for Internet banking in UK. International Journal of Marketing
Studies, 6(1), 75-89. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1510283376?accountid=12085
Al-Qeisi, K., Dennis, C., Hegazy, A., & Abbad, M. (2015). How viable is the UTAUT model in
a non-western context? International Business Research, 8(2), 204-219. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1658410788?accountid=12085
Aldama, F. L. (2013). Latinos and narrative media: Participation and portrayal. New York,
NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Alharbi, S.T. (2014). Trust and acceptance of cloud computing: A revised UTAUT model,
Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI), 2014 International
Conference on Computational Intelligence, 2, 131-134, doi: 10.1109/CSCI.2014.107
Ali, A. I., Papakie, M. R., & McDevitt, T. (2012). Dealing with the distractions of cell phone
misuse/use in the classroom-A case example. Competition Forum, 10(2), 220-230.
Retrieved from
http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA313344725&v
=2.1&u=vic&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=94995e7e562377c5cfa3e8965d2291be
Allsop, M., Gallagher, J., Holt, R., Bhakta, B., & Wilkie, R. M. (2011). Involving children in the
development of assistive technology devices. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive
Technology, 6(2), 148-156. doi:10.3109/17483107.2010.510178
Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technology pedagogical content
knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers & Education, 55(4), 16561662. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.009
185
Aring, S., & Renk, K. (2010). Associations among young children's temperament, parents'
perceptions of their young children, and characteristics of the parent-young child
relationship. Journal of Early Childhood & Infant Psychology. 6, 59-83. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1197058883?accountid=12085
Asgari, A., & Mustapha, G. (2011). The influence of informal language learning environment
(parents and home environment) on the vocabulary learning strategies. English Language
and Literature Studies, 1(1), 7-13. doi: 10.5539/ells.v1n1p7
Attuquayefio, S. N., & Addo, H. (2014). Using the UTAUT model to analyze students' ICT
adoption. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and
Communication Technology, 10(3), 75-86. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1561442065/abstract?accountid=12085
Augustine, J., & Crosnoe, R. (2010). Mother’s depression and educational attainment and their
children’s academic trajectories. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51(3), 274–290.
doi: 10.1177/0022146510377757
Augustine, J. (2014). Mothers’ employment, education, and parenting. Work and Occupations,
41(2), 237-270. doi: 10.1177/0730888413501342
Azlina,.A, Razak, F., & Abdulla, W. (2013). Assessing the effects of UTAUT and self
determination predictor on students continuance intention to use student portal, World
Applied Sciences Journal, 21(10), 1484-1489. doi: 10.5829/idosi.wasj.2013.21.10.2920
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
186
Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Regalia, C., & Scabini, E. (2011), Impact of
family efficacy beliefs on quality of family functioning and satisfaction with family life.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60(3), 421–448. doi: 10.1111/j.14640597.2010.00442.x
Barnyak, N. (2011). A qualitative study in a rural community: Investigating the attitudes, beliefs,
and interactions of young children and their parents regarding storybook read alouds.
Early Childhood Education Journal, 39(2), 149-159. doi: 10.1007/s10643-011-0445-1
Bartholomew, M. K., Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J., Glassman, M., Kamp Dush, C. M., & Sullivan, J.
M. (2012). New parents' Facebook use at the transition to parenthood. Family Relations,
61(3), 455-469. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00708.x
Beebe, B. (1982). Micro-timing in mother-infant communication. In M. Key (Ed.), Nonverbal
communication today: Current research (pp. 169–195). New York, NY: Mouton.
Belkhamza, Z., & Wafa, S. A. (2013). The role of uncertainty avoidance on e-commerce
acceptance across cultures. International Business Research, 6(3), 166-173. doi
10.5539/ibr.v7n5p166
Bell, R. Q. (1968). A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in studies of socialization.
Psychological Review, 75(2), 81–95. doi: 10.1037/h0025583
Bigelow, B. J. (2006). What would Erik Erikson say now?: Just about everything you wanted to
know about modern youth culture and the Internet. PsycCRITIQUES, 51(34), 246-253.
doi: 10.1037/a0003436
Block, J E. (2012). Crucible of consent: American child rearing and the forging of liberal
society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
187
Block, P. (2014). Technology, culture, and stewardship. Organization Development Journal,
32(4), 9-13. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1624967301?accountid=12085
Blumer, H. (1956). Sociological analysis and the “variable”. American Sociological Review,
21(6), 683–690. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2088418
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss. Vol. 1: Attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and Loss. Vol. 2: Separation: Anxiety and Anger. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and Loss. Vol. 3: Loss: Sadness and Depression. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 52(4), 664–678.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development.
New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bozionelos, N. (1996). Psychology of computer use: Prevalence of computer anxiety in British
managers and professionals. Psychological Reports, 78(3), 995-1002. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8711058
Bozorgkhou, N. (2015). An Internet shopping user adoption model using an integrated TTF and
UTAUT: Evidence from Iranian consumers. Management Science Letters, 5(2), 199-204.
doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2014.12.017
Bradshaw, L. (2013). Showtime’s “female problem”: Cancer, quality and motherhood. Journal
of Consumer Culture, 13(2), 160-177. Retrieved from
http://joc.sagepub.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/search?author1=Bradsh
188
Brantley-Dias, L., & Ertmer, P. A. (2014). Goldilocks and TPACK: Is the construct "just right?".
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(2), 103-128. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1492735420?accountid=12085 aw
Brenner, J. (2012, December). Pew Internet: Mobile. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and
American Life Project. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/Commentary/2012/February/Pew-Internet-Mobile.aspx
Brod, M., Tesler, L. E., & Christensen, T. L. (2009). Qualitative research and content validity:
developing best practices based on science and experience. Quality of Life Research,
18(9), 1263-1278. doi: 10.1007/s11136-009-9540-9
Bronfenbrenner. U. (1951). Toward an integrated theory of personality. In R.R. Blake & G.V.
Ramsey (Eds.). Perception: An approach to personality (pp. 206-257). New York, NY:
Ronald Press Company, doi: 10.1037/11505-008
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1973). Social ecology of human development. In F. Richardson (Ed.). Brain
and intelligence: The ecology of child development (pp. 113–129). Hyattsville, MD:
National Education Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1974). Developmental research, public policy, and the ecology of
childhood. Child Development, 45(1), 1–5. doi: 10.2307/1127743
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1975). Reality and research in the ecology of human development.
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 119(6), 439–469. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/986378
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1976). The experimental ecology of education. Teachers College Record,
78(2), 157–204. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ157759
189
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American
Psychologist, 32(7), 513-531. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1978). The social role of the child in ecological perspective. Zeitschrift fur
Soziologie, 7(1), 4–20. Retrieved from http://www.zfsonline.org/index.php/zfs/article/viewFile/2344/1881
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research
perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723-742. doi: 10.1037/00121649.22.6.723
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1988). Interacting systems in human development. Research paradigms:
Present and future. In N. Bolger, A. Caspi, G. Downey, & M. Moorehouse (Eds.),
Persons in contexts: Developmental processes (pp. 25–49).Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Six theories of child
development: Revised formulations and current issues (pp. 185-246). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). The ecology of cognitive development: Research models and
fugitive findings. In R. H. Wozniak & K. Fischer (Eds.), Development in context: Acting
and thinking in specific environments (pp. 3-46). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In T. Husten, & T. N.
Postlethwaite (Eds). International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 16431647). New York, NY: Elsevier Science.
190
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). The bioecological model from a life course perspective: Reflections
of a participant observer. In P. Moen, G. H. Elder, & K. L¨uscher (Eds.), Examining lives
in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development (pp. 599–618).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1999). Environments in developmental perspective: Theoretical and
operational models. In S. L. Friedman & T. D. Wachs (Eds.), Measuring environment
across the life span: Emerging methods and concepts (pp. 3–28). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). The social ecology of human development: A retrospective
conclusion. In Bronfenbrenner, U., (Ed.), Making human beings human: Bioecological
perspectives on human development (pp. 27–40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1993). Heredity, environment, and the question ‘‘how?’’ A
first approximation. In R. Plomin & G. G. McClern (Eds.), Nature, nurture, and
psychology (pp. 313–323). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental
perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101(4), 568-586. doi:
10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.568
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Evans, G. W. (2000). Developmental science in the 21st century:
Emerging theoretical models, research designs, and empirical findings. Social
Development, 9, 115–125. doi: 10.1111/1467-9507.00114
191
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of development processes. In W.
Damon (Series Ed.) & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1.
Theoretical models of human development (pp. 993–1027). New York, NY: Wiley.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In
W. Damon (Series Ed.) & R.M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology:
Theoretical models of human development (pp. 793–828). New York, NY: Wiley.
Brown, C., & Bigler, R. (2005). Children's perceptions of discrimination: A developmental
model. Child Development, 76, 533-553. doi 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00862.x
Brown, G. L., McBride, B. A., Bost, K. K., & Shin, N. (2011). Parental involvement, child
temperament, and parents' work hours: Differential relations for mothers and fathers.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32(6), 313-322. doi:
10.1016/j.appdev.2011.08.004
Brown, T. C. (1984). The concept of value in resource allocation. Land Economics, 60(3), 231–
246.Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/stable/3146184
Bruner, J. S. (1976). From communication to language: A psychological perspective. Cognition,
3(3), 255–287. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(74)90012-2
Bruner, J. S. (1983). Child’s talk: Learning to use language. New York, NY: Norton.
Bruner, G.C., & Kumar A. (2005). Explaining consumer acceptance of handheld Internet
devices. Journal of Business Research, 58(5), 553–558. doi:
10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.08.002
Brynjolfsson, E., & Saunders, A. (2010). Wired for innovation: How information technology is
reshaping the economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
192
Cabrera, N.J., Tamis-LeMonda, C.S., Bradley, R.H., Hofferth, S., & Lamb, M.E. (2000).
Fatherhood in the twenty-first century. Child Development, 71(1), 127-136. doi:
10.1111/1467-8624.00126
Carter, B. (2007). Parenting: A glut of information. Journal of Child Health Care, 11(2), 82-84.
doi: 10.1177/1367493507079621
Ceci, S. J. (1990). On intelligence . . . more or less: A bio-ecological treatise on intellectual
development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ceci, S. J. (1993). Contextual trends in intellectual development. Developmental Review, 13(4),
403-435. doi: 10.1006/drev.1993.1019
Charmaz, K. (2004). Premises, principles, and practices in qualitative research: Revisiting the
foundations. Qualitative Health Research, 14(7), 976-993. doi:
10.1177/1049732304266795
Charness, N., Fox, M. C., & Mitchum, A. L. (2010). Lifespan cognition and information
technology. In K. Fingerman, C. Berg, T. Antonnuci, & J. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of
lifespan psychology. New York, NY: Springer.
Chen, S., Li, S., & Li, C. (2011). Recent related research in Technology Acceptance Model: A
literature review. Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, 1(9), 124127. Retrieved from http://www.ajbmr.com/articlepdf/AJBMR_19_04i1n9a14.pdf
Cheng, K.H., & Tsai, C.C. (2011). An investigation of Taiwan university students’ perceptions
of online academic help seeking, and their web-based learning self-efficacy. Internet and
Higher Education, 14(3), 150–157. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.04.002
193
Chiu, Y.L., Liang, J.C., & Tsai, C.C. (2013). Internet-specific epistemic beliefs and selfregulated learning in online academic information searching. Metacognition and
Learning, 8(3), 235–260. doi: 10.1007/s11409-013-9103-x
Christopher, K. (2012). Extensive mothering: Employed mothers’ constructions of the good
mother. Gender & Society. 26, 73-96. doi: 10.1177/0891243211427700
Cicconi, M. (2014). Vygotsky meets technology: A reinvention of collaboration in the early
childhood mathematics classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 42(1), 57-65.
doi: 10.1007/s10643-013-0582-9
Collett, J. L. (2005). What kind of mother am I? Impression management and the social
construction of motherhood. Symbolic Interaction, 28(3), 327-347. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/224807663?accountid=12085
Cook, D. T. (2013). Introduction: Specifying mothers/motherhoods. Journal of Consumer
Culture, 13(2), 75-78.doi: 10.1177/1469540513482035
Cook, A. M., Adams, K., Encarnacao, P., & Alvarez, L. (2012). The role of assisted
manipulation in cognitive development. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 15(2), 136148. doi: 10.3109/17518423.2011.635609
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative
criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/61239452?pq-origsite=summon
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
194
Couse, L., & Chen, D. (2010). A tablet computer for young children? Exploring its viability for
early childhood education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(1), 7598. Retrieved from
http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA238093998&v
=2.1&u=vic_liberty&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=c1301ff5f2c25a173
Creswell, J. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Czaja, S. J., Charness, N., Fisk, A. D., Hertzog, C., Nair, S. N., & Rogers, W. A. (2006). Factors
predicting the use of technology: Findings from the Center for Research and Education
on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE). Psychology and Aging, 21, 333–
352. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.21.2.333
Dabholkar, P. A. (1994). Incorporating choice into attitudinal framework: Analyzing models of
mental comparison processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 100–118. doi:
10.1086/209385
Dance, J. W., & Service, R. W. (2013). The attractive nuisance: A model to prevent workplace
distractions. Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 5(2), 35-51. Retrieved from:
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/docview/1492267853?pqorigsite=summon
195
Daneback, K., & Plantin, L. (2008). Research on parenthood and the Internet: Themes and
trends. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychological Research on Cyberspace, 2(2), 1-10.
Retrieved from http://cyberpsychology.eu/view.php?cisloclanku=2008110701&article=2
Davies. C. (2011). Digitally strategic: How young people respond to parental views about the use
of technology for learning in the home. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(4),
324–335. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00427.x
Davis, F.D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user
information systems: Theory and results. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MIT Sloan
School of Management, Cambridge, MA.
Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/249008
Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology-system characteristics, user
perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies,
38(3), 475-487. Retrieved from http://sistemas-humanocomputacionais.wdfiles.com/local--files/capitulo%3Asistemas-de-ict/Artigo-Davis93.pdf
Davis, F., Bagozzi, R.,& Warshaw, P. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111-1132.
doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x
Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (1989). User acceptance of computer-technology - a
comparison of 2 theoretical-models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003. Retrieved
from http://home.business.utah.edu/actme/7410/DavisBagozzi.pdf
196
DeAndrea, D.C., Ellison, N.B., LaRose, R., Steinfield, C., & Fiore, A. (2012). Serious social
media: On the use of social media for improving students' adjustment to college. Internet
and Higher Education, 15(1), 15-23. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.05.009
Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4th ed.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
De Coster, S. (2012). Mothers’ work and family roles, gender ideologies, distress, and parenting.
The Sociological Quarterly, 53(4), 585-609. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.2012.01253.x
DeHaan, J. (2004). A multifaceted dynamic model of the digital divide. IT & Society, 1(7), 66–
88. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/251533052
Denzin, N. K. (1970). The research act. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative
research. In N. K. Denzin, and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research
(pp.1-29).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Devers, K.J., &. Frankel, R. M. (2000). Study design in qualitative research—2: Sampling and
data collection strategies. Education for Health, 13(2), 2000, 263–271. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14742088
Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. London:
Routledge.
Dimelis, S., & Papaioannou, S. (2011). ICT growth effects at the industry level: A comparison
between the US and the EU. Information Economics and Policy, 23(1), 37-50. doi:
10.1016/j.infoecopol.2010.03.004.
197
Doering, A., Koseoglu, S., Scharber, C., Henrickson, J., & Lanegran, D. (2014). Technology
integration in K–12 geography education using TPACK as a conceptual model. Journal
of Geography, 113(6), 223-237.doi: 10.1080/00221341.2014.896393
Dowdell, E. B. (2013). Use of the Internet by parents of middle school students: Internet rules,
risky behaviours and online concerns. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing,
20(1), 9–16. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2850.2011.01815.x
Duggan, M., & Rainie, L., (2012). Cell Phone Activities 2012.Washington, DC: Pew Internet and
American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/CellActivities.aspx Accessed 17.12.12
Ehsaei, F. G., & Che Hussin, A. R. (2012). Acceptance of feedbacks in reputation systems: the
role of online social interactions. Information Management and Business Review, 4(7),
391-401. Retrieved from http://ifrnd.org/Research%20Papers/I4%287%293.pdf
Elkaseh, A. M., Wong, K. W., & Fung, C. C. (2015). Perceived ease of use and perceived
usefulness of social media for e-learning in Libyan higher education: A structural
equation modeling analysis. International Journal of Information and Education
Technology, 6(3), 192-199. doi: 10.7763/IJIET.2016.V6.683
Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York, NY: Norton.
Erikson, E. H. (Ed.). (1963). Youth: Change and challenge. New York, NY: Basic books.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York, NY: Norton.
Erikson, E. H., & Erikson, J. M. (1997). The life cycle completed. New York, NY: Norton.
Erikson, E. H., Paul, I. H., Heider, F., & Gardner, R. W. (1959). Psychological issues (Vol. 1).
Madison, CT: International Universities Press
198
Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry.
A guide to methods. London: Sage Publications, Inc.
Ertem, I. S. (2011). Understanding interactive cd-rom storybooks and their functions in reading
comprehension: A critical review. International Journal of Progressive Education, 7(1),
28-44. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ919478
Esteva-Armida, E., & Rubio-Sanchez, A. (2012). Adoption process for VoIP: The UTAUT
model. International Journal of E-Services and Mobile Applications, 4(4), 15-31. doi:
10.4018/jesma.2012100102
Eynon, R., & Malmberg, L. (2011). Understanding the online information-seeking behaviours of
young people: the role of networks of support. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
28(4), 514–529. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00460.x
Ferri, F., Grifoni, R., Caschera, M. , D'Andrea, A., D' Ulizia, A., & Guzzo, T. (2014). An
Ecosystemic Environment for Knowledge and Services Sharing on Creative Enterprises.
Proceeding of the International Conference on Management of Computational and
Collective IntElligence in Digital EcoSystems (MEDES'14, pp. 27-33), 15-17. September
2014, Qassim in Buraydah, Saudi Arabia. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/10.1145/2668260.2668308
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fischer, J., & Anderson, V. N. (2012). Gender role attitudes and characteristics of stay-at-home
and employed fathers. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 13(1), 16-31. doi:
10.1037/a0024359
199
Fisher, K.R., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R.M., & Gryfe, S.G. (2008). Conceptual split? Parents'
and experts' perceptions of play in the 21st century, Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 29(4), 305-316. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2008.04.006
Fleming, S. E., Vandermause, R., & Shaw, M. (2014). First-time mothers preparing for birthing
in an electronic world: Internet and mobile phone technology. Journal of Reproductive
and Infant Psychology, 32(3), 240-253. doi: 10.1080/02646838.2014.886104
Fletcher, A. C., & Blair, B. L. (2014a). Maternal authority regarding early adolescents’ social
technology use. Journal of Family Issues, 35(1), 54-74. doi: 10.1177/0192513X12467753
Fletcher, A. C., & Blair, B. L. (2014b). Implications of the family expert role for parental rules
regarding adolescent use of social technologies. New Media & Society, 1-18. doi:
10.1177/1461444814538922
Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research. (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications Inc.
Foasberg, N. M. (2011). Adoption of e-book readers among college students: A survey.
Information Technology and Libraries, 30(3), 108-128. Retrieved from
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA265573673&v=2.1&u=vic_liberty&it=r
&p=AONE&sw=w&authCount=1
Forbes, R. J. (1958). Man, the maker; and history of technology and engineering. New York,
NY: Abelard-Schuman.
Fox, S., & Madden, M. (2006). Generations online. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and
American Life Project. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2006/Generations-Online/Data-Memo.aspx
Accessed 19.09.12
200
Francis, D. (2012). Where do you fall in the American economic class system? U.S. News and
World Report. Retrieved from http://money.usnews.com/money/personalfinance/articles/2012/09/13/where-do-you-fall-in-the-american-economic-class-system
Freehling-Burton, K. (2012). Lost mothers: The "othering" of mothers on the TV show Lost.
Femspec, 12(2), 66-84. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1231670089?accountid=12085
Freud, S. (1900/1961). The interpretation of dreams. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.). The standard
edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vols. 4-5, pp. 1-627).
London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1900)
Freud, S. (1915/1961). The unconscious. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.). The standard edition of
the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 14, pp. 161-215). London:
Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1915)
Freud, S. (1923/1961). The Ego and the Id. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.). The standard edition of
the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 19, pp. 3-66). London:
Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1923)
Freud, S. (1933/1961). New introductory lectures on psycho-analysis. In J. Strachey (Ed. &
Trans.). The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud
(Vol. 22, pp. 3-182). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1933)
Friedman, M. (2013). Mommyblogs and the Changing Face of Motherhood. Toronto, ON, CAN:
University of Toronto Press. Retrieved from
http://site.ebrary.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/lib/liberty/reader.action?docID=1067755
7&ppg=14
201
Furlong, J., & Davies, C. (2012). Young people, new technologies and learning at home: Taking
context seriously. Oxford Review of Education, 38(1), 45-62. doi:
10.1080/03054985.2011.577944
Gajjala, R. (2011). Global media, culture, and identity: Theory, cases, and approaches. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Gardner, M. P., Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Heiney-Gonzalez, D. (2012). Marketing
toys without playing around. Young Consumers: Insight and Ideas for Responsible
Marketers, 13(4), 381-391. doi: 10.1108/17473611211282626
Gebremeskel, G. B., Kebede, A. A., & Chai, Y. (2015). The paradigm role of ICT for behavioral
and educational psychology: The case of developing countries. International Journal of
Information and Education Technology, 6(4), 301-307. doi: 10.7763/IJIET.2016.V6.704
Gialamas, V., & Nikolopoulou, K. (2010). In-service and pre-service early childhood teachers’
views and intentions about ICT use in early childhood settings: A comparative study.
Computers & Education, 55(1), 333-341. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.01.019
Gittell, R., & Vidal, A. (1998). Community organizing: Building social capital as a development
strategy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Books.
Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Goldman, A.E. (1962). The group depth interview. Journal of Marketing, 26, 61-68. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/209278554?pq-origsite=summon
202
Graham, C., Borup, J., & Smith, N. (2012). Using TPACK as a framework to understand teacher
candidates' technology integration decisions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
28(6), 530-546. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00472.x
Grant, L. (2011). ‘I'm a completely different person at home’: Using digital technologies to
connect learning between home and school. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27,
292-302. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00433.x
Guldberg, K., Porayska-Pomsta, K., Good, J., & Keay-Bright, W. (2010). ECHOES II: The
creation of a technology enhanced learning environment for typically developing children
and children on the autism spectrum. Journal of Assistive Technologies, 4(1), 49-53. doi:
10.5042/jat.2010.0044
Guzzo, T., Ferri, F., & Grifoni, P. (2015). ECA: An E-commerce consumer acceptance model.
International Business Research, 8(1), 145-155. doi: 10.5539/ibr.v8n1p145
Halaweh, M. (2013). Emerging technology: What is it? Journal of Technology Management &
Innovation, 8(3), 108-115. doi: 10.4067/S0718-27242013000400010
Hall, S. S. (2011). Wisdom: From philosophy to neuroscience. New York: Vintage.
Hall, W. A., & Callery, P. (2001). Enhancing the rigor of grounded theory: Incorporating
reflexivity and relationality. Qualitative Health Research, 11(2), 257-272. doi:
10.1177/104973201129119082
Harpham, T., Grant, E., & Thomas, E. (2002). Measuring social capital within health surveys:
Key issues. Health Policy and Planning, 17(1), 106-111. doi: 10.1093/heapol/17.1.106
Harris, C., Straker, L., & Pollock, C. (2013). The influence of age, gender and other information
technology use on young people's computer use at school and home. Work, 44, Issue
Supplement 1, 61-71. doi: 10.1605/01.301-0022025989.2013
203
Hendrickson, A. R., Massey, P. D., & Cronan, T. P. (1993). On the test-retest reliability of
perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use scales, MIS Quarterly, 17(2) 227–230.
Retrieved from Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/218116103?accountid=12085
Herold, J. (2011). Beginning and struggling readers: Engaging parents in the learning process."
Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 19(3), 40-50. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1038111958?pq-origsite=summon
Hertlein, K. M. (2012). Digital dwelling: Technology in couple and family relationships. Family
Relations, 61(3), 374-387. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00702.x
Highmore, B. (2011). Ordinary lives. Studies in the everyday. New York: Routledge.
Hollingworth, S., Mansaray, A., Allen, K., & Rose, A. (2011). Parents' perspectives on
technology and children's learning in the home: Social class and the role of the habitus. A
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(4), 347-360. doi: 10.1111/j.13652729.2011.00431.x
Hong, J., & Stonier, F. (2014). GIS in-service teacher training based on TPACK. Journal of
Geography, 1-10. doi: 10.1080/00221341.2014.947381
Hwee, L. K., Chai, C. S., & Ching-Chung, T. (2014). Demographic factors, TPACK constructs,
and teachers' perceptions of constructivist-oriented TPACK. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society, 17(1), 185-196. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1502989170?accountid=12085
Im, I., Hong, S., & Kang, M. (2011). An international comparison of technology adoption:
Testing the UTAUT model, Information & Management, 48(1), 1-8. doi:
10.1016/j.im.2010.09.001.
204
Isomursu, M., Ervasti, M., Kinnula, M., & Isomursu, P. (2011). Understanding human values in
adopting new technology—A case study and methodological discussion. International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 69(4), 183-200. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2010.12.001
Jaafar, N., Darmawan, B., & Ariffin, M. (2014). Face-to-face or not-to-face: A technology
preference for communication. Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking,
17(11), 702-708. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2014.0098
Jamieson-Proctor, R., Albion, P., Finger, G., Cavanagh, R., Fitzgerald, R., Bond, T., &
Grimbeek, P. (2013). Development of the TTF TPACK survey instrument. Australian
Educational Computing, 27(3), 26-35. Retrieved from
http://eprints.usq.edu.au/24524/8/JamiesonProctor_Albion_Finger_etal_AEC_2013_PV.pdf
Jang, J., & Dworkin, J. (2014). Does social network site use matter for mothers? Implications for
bonding and bridging capital. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 489-495. doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.049
Jang, J., Dworkin, J., & Hessel. (2015). Mothers' use of information and communication
technologies for information seeking. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social
Networking, 18(4), 221-227. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2014.0533
Jaradat, M. R., & Al Rababaa, M.S. (2013). Assessing key factor that influence on the
acceptance of mobile commerce based on modified UTAUT. International Journal of
Business and Management, 8(23), 102-112. doi: 10.5539/ijbm.v8n23p102
Jewitt, C., & Parashar, U. (2011). Technology and learning at home: Findings from the
evaluation of the Home Access Programme pilot. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 27(4), 303-313. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00434.x
205
Jiang, L. C., Bazarova, N. N., & Hancock, J. T. (2011). The disclosure-intimacy link in
computer-mediated communication: An attributional extension of the hyperpersonal
model. Human Communication Research, 37(1), 58-77. doi: 10.1111/j.14682958.2010.01393.x
Johanson, K. (2010). Culture for or by the child? “Children’s culture” and cultural policies.
Poetics, 38, 386-401. doi: 10.1016/j.poetic.2010.05.002
Johnson, G. M. (2010). Internet use and child development: Validation of the ecological technosubsystem. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(1), 176-185. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1287035619?accountid=12085
Johnson, G. M. (2011). Self-esteem and use of the Internet among young school-age children.
International Journal of Psychological Studies, 3(2), 48-53. doi: 10.5539/ijps.v3n2p48
Johnson, G. M., & Puplampu, P. (2008). A conceptual framework for understanding the effect of
the Internet on child development: The ecological techno-subsystem. Canadian Journal
of Learning and Technology, 34, 19-28. Retrieved from
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA221919038&v=2.1&u=vic_liberty&it=r
&p=AONE&sw=w&authCount=1
Jones, N. (2014). Heroines of film and television: Portrayals in popular culture. Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers.
Jones, T., & Brown, C. (2011). Reading engagement: A comparison between e-books and
traditional print books in an elementary classroom. International Journal of Instruction,
4(2), 5-22. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED522678
206
Joshua, A. J., & Koshy M. P. (2011). Usage patterns of electronic banking services by urban
educated customers: Glimpses from India. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce,
16(1), 1-12. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/876040047
Kaba, B., & Touré, B. (2014), Understanding information and communication technology
behavioral intention to use: Applying the UTAUT model to social networking site
adoption by young people in a least developed country. Journal of the Association for
Information Science and Technology, 65, 1662–1674. doi: 10.1002/asi.23069ntid=12085
Kabakci Yurdakul, I. & Coklar, A. N. (2014). Modeling preservice teachers’ TPACK
competencies based on ICT usage. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(4) 363–
376. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12049
Karahanna, E., Straub, D., & Chervany, N. (1999) Information technology adoption across time:
a cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Quarterly,
23(2), 183–213. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/218114575?accountid=12085
Kaye, K. (1982). The mental and social life of babies: How parents create persons. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Khechine, H., Lakhal, S., Pascot, D., & Bytha, A. (2014). UTAUT Model for Blended Learning:
The Role of Gender and Age in the Intention to Use Webinars. Interdisciplinary Journal
of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 10, 33-52. Retrieved from
http://www.ijello.org/Volume10/IJELLOv10p033-052Khechine0876.pdf
207
Khidzir, N. Z., Daud, K. A., & Ibrahim, M. A. (2015). The relationship among student's domain
of learning development implementing virtual learning in higher learning institutions.
International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(6), 418-422. doi:
10.7763/IJIET.2016.V6.725
Kim, Y.H., Kim, D.J., & Wachter, K. (2013). A study of mobile user engagement (MoEN):
Engagement motivations, perceived value, satisfaction, and continued engagement
intention. Decision Support Systems, 56, 361-370. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2013.07.002
Kimmons, R. (2015). Examining TPACK's theoretical future. Journal of Technology and
Teacher Education, 23(1), 53-77. Retrieved from
http://rx9vh3hy4r.search.serialssolutions.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048
Ko, C.-C., Chiang, C.-H., Lin, Y.-L., & Chen, M.-C. (2011). An individualized e-reading system
developed based on multi-representations approach. Educational Technology & Society,
14(4), 88-98. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ963282
Ko, C., Yen, J., Yen, C., Chen, C. C., Yen, C. N., & Chen, S. (2005). Screening for Internet
addiction: An empirical study on cut-off points for the Chen Internet Addiction Scale.
Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Science, 21, 545–551. doi: 10.1016/S1607551X(09)70206-2.
Korat, O. (2010). Reading electronic books as a support for vocabulary, story comprehension
and word reading in kindergarten and first grade. Computers & Education, 55(1), 24-31.
doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.014
Korat, O., & Blau, H. (2010). Repeated reading of cd-rom storybooks as a support for emergent
literacy: A developmental perspective in two SES groups. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 43(4), 445-466. doi: 10.2190/EC.43.4.b
208
Korat, O., & Or, T. (2010). How new technology influences parent-child interaction: The case of
e-book reading. First Language, 30(2), 139-154.
Krebs, H.I., Fasoli, S.E., Dipietro, L., Fragala-Pinkham, M., Hughes, R., Stein, J., & Hogan, N.
(2012). Motor learning characterizes habilitation of children with hemiplegic cerebral
palsy. Neurorehabilitation Neural Repair. 26(7), 855-860. doi:
10.1177/1545968311433427
Kulik, L., & Liberman, G. (2013). Work–family conflict, resources, and role set density:
Assessing their effects on distress among working mothers. Journal of Career
Development, 40(5), 445-465. doi: 10.1177/0894845312467500
Lahtinen, H. J. (2012). Young people’s ICT role at home—a descriptive study of young Finnish
people’s ICT views in the home context. Quality & Quantity, 46(2), 581-597. doi:
10.1007/s11135-010-9409-6
Lan, C. M., & Lee, Y. H. (2013). The predictors of Internet addiction behaviours for Taiwanese
elementary school students. School Psychology International, 34(6), 648-657.doi:
10.1177/0143034313479690
Landes, D. S. (1969). The unbound Prometheus: Technological and industrial development in
Western Europe from 1750 to the present. London: Cambridge University Press.
Le Heuzey, M. F. (2012). Social media, children and pediatricians. Archives de pediatrie, 19(1),
92-95. doi: 10.1016/j.arcped.2011.10.016
Lee, H., Park, N., & Hwang, Y. (2015). A new dimension of the digital divide: Exploring the
relationship between broadband connection, smartphone use and communication
competence, Telematics and Informatics, 32, 45-56. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2014.02.001
209
Lebens, M., Graff, M., & Mayer, P. (2009). Access, attitudes, and the digital divide: Children’s
attitudes toward computers in a technology-rich environment. Educational Media
International, 46(3), 255-266. doi: 10.1080/09523980903135467
Lee, S. J., & Chae, Y. G. (2007). Children’s Internet use in a family context: Influence on family
relationships and parental mediation. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 10(5), 640-644.
doi: 10.1089/cpb.2007.9975
Leviäkangas, P., Schneitz, A., & Aapaoja, A. (2015). The evolution of Finnish "dream school" via public entrepreneurship from innovative concepts to national scale-up. International
Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(7), 508-515. doi:
10.7763/IJIET.2016.V6.742
Levy, K. N., Ellison, W. D., Scott, L. N., & Bernecker, S. L. (2011). Attachment style. Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 67(2), 193-203. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20756
Lewin, K. (1943). Forces behind food habits and methods of change. Bulletin of the National
Research Council, 108, 35-65. Retrieved from
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFj
AA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nap.edu%2Fopenbook.php
Li, D. (2011). Online social network acceptance: a social perspective. Internet Research, 21(5),
562-580. doi: 10.1108/10662241111176371
Li, S., & Pow, J. (2011). Affordance of deep infusion of one-to-one tablet-pcs into and beyond
classroom. International Journal of Instructional Media, 38(4), 319-326. Retrieved from
http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA268478396&v
=2.1&u=vic_liberty&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&authCount=1
210
Li, S., Pow, J., Wong, E., & Fung, A. (2010). Empowering student learning through tablet PCs:
A case study. Education and Information Technologies, 15(3), 171-180. doi:
10.1007/s10639-009-9103-2
Li, Y., Zhang, X., Lu, F., Zhang, Q., & Wang, Y. (2014). Internet addiction among elementary
and middle school students in China: A nationally representative sample study.
Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking, 17(2), 111-116. doi:
10.1089/cyber.2012.0482
Lin, C., & Anol, B.(2008). Learning online social support: an investigation of network
information technology based on UTAUT CyberPsychology and Behavior, 11(3), 268–
272. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2007.0057
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc.
Lu, L. (2014). Cultivating reflective practitioners in technology preparation: Constructing
TPACK through reflection. Education Sciences, 4(1), 13-35. doi:
10.3390/educsci4010013
Lu, J., Yu, C., & Liu, C. (2009). Mobile data service demographics in urban china. The Journal
of Computer Information Systems, 50(2), 117-126. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/232572979?accountid=12085
Madden, M., Cortesi, S., Gasser, U., Lenhart, A., & Duggan, M. (2012). Parents, teens, and
online privacy. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved from http://
pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Teens-and-Privacy.aspx
Madge, C., & O’Connor, H. (2006). Parenting gone wired: Empowerment of new mothers on the
Internet? Social & Cultural Geography, 7(2), 199-220. doi 10.1080/14649360600600528
211
Maeng, J.L., Mulvey, B. K., Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2013). Preservice Teachers’ TPACK:
Using Technology to Support Inquiry Instruction. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 22(6), 838-857. doi: 10.1007/s10956-013-9434-z
Magsamen-Conrad, K., Upadhyaya, S., Joa, C., & Dowd, J. (2015). Bridging the divide: Using
UTAUT to predict multigenerational tablet adoption practices. Computers in Human
Behavior, 50, 186-196. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.032
Mantel, S. P., & Kardes, F. R. (1999). The role of direction of comparison, attribute-based
processing, and attitude-based processing in consumer preference. Journal of Consumer
Research, 25(4), 335–352. doi: 10.1086/209543
Maillet, E., Mathieu, L., & Sicotte, C., (2015). Modeling factors explaining the acceptance,
actual use and satisfaction of nurses using an Electronic Patient Record in acute care
settings: An extension of the UTAUT, International Journal of Medical Informatics,
84(1), 36-47. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.09.004.
Mao, J. (2014). Social media for learning: A mixed methods study on high school students'
technology affordances and perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 213-223.
doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.002
Marchewka, J., Liu, C., & Kostiwa, K. (2007). An application of the UTAUT model for
understanding student perceptions using course management software. Communications
of the IIMA, 7(2), 93–104. Retrieved from
http://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/ciima/vol7/iss2/10/
Martini, F., & Senechal, M. (2012). Learning literacy skills at home: Parent teaching,
expectations, and child interest. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 44(3), 210221. doi: 10.1037/a0026758
212
Mastrodicasa, J., & Metellus, P. (2013). The impact of social media on college students. Journal
of College and Character, 14(1), 21-30. doi: 10.1515/jcc-2013-0004
Matherson, L. H., Wilson, E. K., & Wright, V. H. (2014). Need TPACK? Embrace sustained
professional development. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 81(1), 45-52. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1568735775?accountid=12085
Mawson, B. (2010). Children’s developing understanding of technology. International Journal
of Technology and Design Education, 20(1), 1-13. doi: 10.1007/s10798-008-9062-8
Maxwell, J. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Maynard, S. (2010). The impact of e-books on young children’s reading habits. Publishing
Research Quarterly, 26(4), 236-248. doi: 10.1007/s12109-010-9180-5
McCann, A. D., & McCulloch, J. E. (2012). Establishing an online and social media presence for
your IBCLC practice. Journal of Human Lactation, 28(4), 450-454.
10.1177/0890334412461304
McDaniel, B. T., Coyne, S. M., & Holmes, E. K. (2012). New mothers and media use:
Associations between blogging, social networking, and maternal well-being. Maternal
and Child Health Journal, 16(7), 1509-1517. doi: 10.1007/s10995-011-0918-2
McKown, C., & Weinstein, R. (2003). The development and consequences of stereotype
consciousness in middle childhood. Child Development, 74, 498-515. doi: 10.1111/14678624.7402012
Meehan, D. (1983). Ladies of the evening: Women characters of primetime television. Metuchen,
NJ: Scarecrow Press.
213
Melnick, S. A., Witmer, J. T., & Strickland, M. J. (2011). Cognition and student learning through
the Arts. Arts Education Policy Review, 112(3), 154-162. doi:
10.1080/10632913.2011.566100
Melody, W. H. (1986). A network for research on information and communication technologies:
Report III. Economic and Social Research Council Document CP 49/86. London: ESRC.
Merton, R.K., Fiske, M., & Kendall, P. (1956). The focused interview. Illinois: Free Press.
Mesch, G. S. (2012). Technology and youth. New Directions for Youth Development, 2012(135),
97-105. doi: 10.1002/yd.20032
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A framework
for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. Retrieved from
http: http://punya.educ.msu.edu/publications/journal_articles/mishra-koehler-tcr2006.pdf
Mitzner, T. L., Boron, J. B., Fausset, C. B., Adams, A. E., Charness, N., & Czaja, S. J., (2010).
Older adults talk technology: Technology usage and attitudes. Computers in Human
Behavior, 26(6), 1710-1721. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.020
Moody, A., Justice, L., & Cabell, S. (2010). Electronic versus traditional storybooks: Relative
influence on preschool children’s engagement and communication. Journal of Early
Childhood Literacy, 10(3), 294-313. doi: 10.1177/1468798410372162
Morgan, D.L. & Spanish, M.T. (1984). Focus groups: A new tool for qualitative research.
Qualitative Sociology, 7(3), 253-270. doi: 10.1007/BF00987314
214
Morley, G. (2011). Primary teachers and ICT: Is gender, age or experience important? Journal of
Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 9(7), 5-9. Retrieved from
http://www.iiisci.org/Journal/CV$/sci/pdfs/SP253WY.pdf
Morris, M. & Venkatesh, V. (2000) Age differences in technology adoption decisions:
Implications for a changing work force. Personnel Psychology, 53(2), 375–403. doi:
10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00206.x
Morris, M., Venkatesh, V., & Ackerman, P. (2005). Gender and Age Differences in Employee
Decisions about New Technology: An Extension to the Theory of Planned Behavior,
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 52(1), 69-84. doi
10.1109/TEM.2004.839967
Musleh, J., Marthandan, G., & Aziz, N. (2015). An extension of UTAUT model for Palestine ecommerce. International Journal of Electronic Business, 12(1), 95-115. doi:
10.1504/IJEB.2015.068318
Muthitcharoen, A., Palvia, P., & Grover, V. (2011). Building a model of technology preference:
The case of channel choices. Decision Sciences, 42(1), 205–237. doi: 10.1111/j.15405915.2010.00306.x
Naftel, R.P., Safiano, N.A., Falola, M.I., Shannon, C.N., Wellons, J.C., & Johnston, J.M. (2013).
Technology preferences among caregivers of children with hydrocephalus clinical article.
Journal of Neurosurgery-Pediatrics, 11(1), 26-36. doi: 10.3171/2012.9.PEDS12208
Nakamura, L., & Chow-White, P, (Eds.). (2011). Race and New Media. Florence, KY,
Routledge. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/liberty/Doc?id=10535025&ppg=12
215
Nasri, W. (2014). Citizens' E-Government Services Adoption: An Extension of Unified Theory
of Acceptance and Use of Technology Model. International Journal of Public
Administration in the Digital Age (IJPADA), 1(2), 80-96. doi:
10.4018/ijpada.2014040105
Natsiopoulou, T., & Bletsou, M. (2011). Greek preschoolers’ use of electronic media and their
preferences for media or books. International Journal of Caring Sciences, 4(2), 97-104.
Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/1081513N
Nelson, F. (2009). In the other room: Entering the culture of motherhood. Halifax: Fernwood
Publishing.
Nielsen Company. (2014). Shifts in viewing: The cross-platform report Q2, Media and
Entertainment. Retrieved from
http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports/2014/shifts-in-viewing-the-cross-platformreport-q2-2014.html
Nistor, N., Göüs, A., & Lerche, T. (2013). Educational technology acceptance across national
and professional cultures: A european study. Educational Technology, Research and
Development, 61(4), 733-749. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9292-7
North, S., Snyder, I., & Bulfin, S. (2008). Digital tastes: Social class and young people's
technology use, Information, Communication & Society, 11(7), 895-911. doi:
10.1080/13691180802109006
Ntuli, E., & Kyei-Blankson, L. (2012). Teacher assessment of young children learning with
technology in early childhood education. International Journal of Information and
Communication Technology Education, 8(4), 1-10. doi: 10.4018/jicte.2012100101
216
Nystrom, K., & Ohrling, K. (2006). Parental support: Mothers' experience of electronic
encounters. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 12(4), 194-197. doi:
10.1258/135763306777488726
Nystrom, K., & Ohrling, K. (2008). Electronic encounters: Fathers' experiences of parental
support. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 14(2), 71-74. doi:
10.1258/jtt.2007.070605
Oh, J., & Yoon, S. (2014). Predicting the use of online information services based on a modified
UTAUT model. Behaviour and Information Technology, 33(7), 716-729. doi:
10.1080/0144929X.2013.872187
Oye, N., A. Iahad, N., & A.b.Rahim, N. (2014). The history of UTAUT model and its impact on
ICT acceptance and usage by academicians. Education and Information Technologies.
19(1), 251-270. doi: 10.1007/s10639-012-9189-9
Oye, N., A. Iahad, N., & Nor Zairah, A. (2011). An application of the UTAUT model for
understanding acceptance and use of ICT by Nigerian university academicians.
International Journal of Information Communication Technologies and Human
Development, 3(4), 1-16. doi: 10.4018/jicthd.2011100101
Oye, N., A. Iahad, N., & Nor Zairah, A. (2012). The impact of UTAUT model and ICT
theoretical framework on University academic staff: Focus on Adamawa State
University, Nigeria. International Journal of Computers & Technology, 2(2), 102-111.
Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.303.5257&rep=rep1&type=pdf
217
Padron, Y. N., Waxman, H. C., Lee, Y-H., Lin, M-F, & Michko, G. M. (2010). Classrooms
observations of teaching and learning with technology in urban elementary school
mathematics classrooms serving English language learners. International Journal of
Instructional Media, 39(1), 45-54. Retrieved from
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA282067845&v
Parameswaran, S., Kishore, R., & Li, P. (2015). Within-study measurement invariance of the
UTAUT instrument: An assessment with user technology engagement variables.
Information & Management, 52(3), 317-336. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2014.12.007
Park, J., Yang, S. & Lehto, X. (2007) Adoption of mobile technologies for Chinese consumers,
Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 8(3) 196-206. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/236639894?accountid=12085:
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Pearce, K. E., & Rice, R. E. (2013). Digital divides from access to activities: comparing mobile
and personal computer Internet users. Journal of Communication, 63(4), 721–744. doi:
10.1111/jcom.12045
Phillips, D. C., & Barbules, N. (2000). Postpositivism and educational research. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Pijpers, G. (2001). Executives’ use of information technology: an examination of factors
influencing managerial beliefs, attitudes and use of information technology. Information
and Software Technology, 43(15), 959–971. Retrieved from
http://www.guuspijpers.com/documenten/Pijpers%20%20Managing%20Web%20Usage%20in%20the%20Workplace.pdf
218
Ploog, B. O., Scharf, A., Nelson, D., & Brooks, P. J. (2013). Use of computer-assisted
technologies (CAT) to enhance social, communicative, and language development in
children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 43(2), 301-322. doi: 10.1007/s10803-012-1571-3
Plowman, L., Stephen, C., & McPake, J. (2010). Supporting young children’s learning with
technology at home and in preschool. Research Papers in Education, 25(1), 93-113.
Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02671520802584061#preview
Plowman, L., Stevenson, O., McPake, J., Stephen, C., & Adey, C. (2011). Parents, preschoolers
and learning with technology at home: some implications for policy. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 27(4), 361-371. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00432.x
Pugh, A. (2011). Distinction, boundaries or bridges: Children, inequality and the uses of
consumer culture. Poetics, 39, 1-18. doi: 10.1016/j.poetic.2010.10.002
Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New
York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Quan-Haase, A., & Young, A. L. (2010). Uses and gratifications of social media: A comparison
of Facebook and instant messaging. Bulletin of Science, Technology, & Society, 30(5),
350-361. doi: 10.1177/0270467610380009
Rainie, L., & Fox, S. (2012). Just-in-time information through mobile connections. Washington,
DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Just-in-time.aspx
219
Raman, A., Don, Y., Khalid, R., & Rizuan, M. (2014). Usage of learning management system
(Moodle) among postgraduate students: UTAUT model. Asian Social Science, 10(14),
186-192. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1543263406?accountid=12085
Raman, A., Don, Y., Khalid, R., Hussin, F., Omar, M. S., & Ghani, M. (2014). Technology
acceptance on smart board among teachers in Terengganu using UTAUT model. Asian
Social Science, 10(11), 84-91. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1536869663?accountid=12085
Read, W., Robertson, N., & McQuilken, L. (2011). A novel romance: The Technology
Acceptance Model with emotional attachment. Australasian Marketing Journal, 19(4),
223-229. doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2011.07.004
Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010, January). Generation M2: Media in the
lives of 8- to 18-year-olds. Retrieved from http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/8010
Rideout, V.J., Lauricella, A., & Wartella, E. (2011). Children, media, and race: Media use
among white, black, Hispanic, and Asian American children. Evanston, IL: Center on
Media and Human Development, School of Communication, Northwestern University.
Retrieved from http://web5.soc.northwestern.edu/cmhd/wpcontent/uploads/2011/06/SOCconfReportSingleFinal-1.pdf
Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press
Rosa, E. M., & Tudge, J. (2013), Urie Bronfenbrenner's theory of human development: Its
evolution from ecology to bioecology. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 5(4), 243–
258. doi: 10.1111/jftr.12022
220
Rothbaum, F., Martland, N., & Jannsen, J. B. (2008). Parents’ reliance on the web to find
information about children and families: Socio-economic differences in use, skills, and
satisfaction. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(2), 118–128. Retrieved
from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ788064
Rowe, M.L. (2012). Longitudinal investigation of the role of quantity and quality of childdirected speech in vocabulary development. Child Development, 83(5), 1762-1774. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01805
Ruggerio, A. A. (Ed.). (2012). Media depictions of brides, wives, and mothers. Blue Ridge
Summit, PA: Lexington Books. Retrieved from
http://site.ebrary.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/lib/liberty/detail.action?docID=10643343
Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Saldaña, J. (2014). Evaluating qualitative research. In P. Leavy (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook of
Qualitative Research (pp. 581-605). New York, NY: The Oxford University Press.
Sánchez-Navarro, J. & Aranda, D. (2013). Messenger and social network sites as tools for
sociability, leisure and informal learning for Spanish young people. European Journal of
Communication, 28(1), 67-75. doi: 10.1177/0267323111432411
Sandberg, K. (2011). College student academic online reading: A review of the current literature.
Journal of College Reading and Learning, 42(1), 89-99. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/936617658?pq-origsite=summon
Schaffer, H. R. (Ed.). (1977). Studies in mother-infant interaction. London: Academic.
221
Schank, J. (2012). Knowing Who's Harmed – The Use of Membership Categorization in AgeRating Computer Games. Zeitschrift Für Rechtssoziologie, 33(1), 31-49. Retrieved from
http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/mrg/knowledge/units/psychology/news/index.html.en
Schnellert, G., & Keengwe, J. (2012). Digital technology integration in American public schools.
International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 8(3),
36-44. doi: 10.4018/jicte.2012070105
Selwyn, N., Banaji, S., Hadjithoma-Garstka, C., & Clark W. (2011). Providing a platform for
parents? Exploring the nature of parental engagement with school learning platforms.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(4), 314–323. doi: 10.1111/j.13652729.2011.00428.x
Shaikh, M. A., Shaikh, M. A., & Asar, F. (2012). Young people as consumers of information
technology in a third world country. Nurture, 6(1), 1-12. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1326765081?pq-origsite=summon
Shen, J. (2012). Social comparison, social presence, and enjoyment in the acceptance of social
shopping websites. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 13(3), 198-212. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1034895309?accountid=12085
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects.
Education for Information, 22(2), 63-75. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/29067771?pq-origsite=summon
Shin, W., Huh, J., & Faber, R. (2012). Tweens online privacy risks and the role of parental
mediation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(4), 632-649. doi:
10.1080/08838151.2012.732135
222
Siegenthaler, E., Wurtz, P., Bergamin, P., & Groner, R. (2011). Comparing reading processes on
e-ink displays and print. Displays, 32, 268-273. doi: 10.1016/j.displa.2011.05.005
Silverstone, R. (1994). Television and everyday life. New York, NY: Routledge.
Sinclair, M. (2013). The 'z generation': Digital mothers and their infants. Evidence Based
Midwifery, 11(1), 3-10. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1470800446?accountid=12085
Smith, P. (2012). Bullying and cyberbullying among children and young people. International
Journal of Psychology, 47, 273-274. Retrieved from
http://rx9vh3hy4r.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx
Song, L., Spier, E., & Tamis-Lemonda, C. (2014). Reciprocal influences between maternal
language and children's language and cognitive development in low-income families.
Journal of Child Language, 41(2), 305-311. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/pubmed
Stevenson, O. (2011). From public policy to family practices: Researching the everyday realities
of families' technology use at home. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(4), 336–
346. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00430.x
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures
and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Susskind, C. (1975). Understanding technology. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
223
Sussman, S.W., & Siegal, W. S. (2003) Informational influence in organizations: An integrated
approach to knowledge adoption. Information Systems Research, 14(1), 47-65. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/208162861?accountid=12085
Swindle, T., Ward, W., Whiteside-Mansell, L., Bokony, P., & Pettit, D. (2014). Technology use
and interest among low-income parents of young children: Differences by age group and
ethnicity, Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 46(6), 484-490,
doi.10.1016/j.jneb.2014.06.004.
Takeuchi, L. M. (2011). Families matter: Designing media for a digital age. New York, NY:
The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. Retrieved from
http://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/06/jgcc_familiesmatter.pdf
Tapscott, D. (2008). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. New
York: McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing. Retrieved from
http://site.ebrary.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/lib/liberty/reader.action?docID=1025161
4&ppg=18
Tauber, A. I. (2013). Freud without Oedipus: The cognitive unconscious. Philosophy, Psychiatry
& Psychology, 20(3), 231-241, 286-287. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1513200183?accountid=12085
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing
models, Information Systems Research, 6(4), 144-176. Retrieved from
//www.jstor.org/stable/23011007
224
Teng, C., Fan-Chen, T., Chen, Y., & Wu, S. (2012). Online gaming misbehaviours and their
adverse impact on other gamers. Online Information Review, 36(3), 342-358. doi:
10.1108/14684521211241387
Thomas, T. D., Singh, L., Gaffar, K., Thakur, D., Jackman, G., Thomas, M., . . . Tooma, K.
(2014). Measurement invariance of the UTAUT constructs in the Caribbean.
International Journal of Education and Development using Information and
Communication Technology, 10(4), 102-127. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1647669436?accountid=12085
Thomson, M., MacInnis, D.J., & Park, C.W. (2005). The ties that bind: Measuring the strength of
consumers’ emotional attachments to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1),
77-91. doi: 10.1207/s15327663jcp1501_10
Thompson, A. D., & Mishra, P. (2007). Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK! Journal of
Computing in Teacher Education, 24(2), 38, 64. Retrieved from
http://list.terc.edu/pipermail/climateliteracynetwork/attachments/20101209/556305a7/atta
chment.pdf
Thompson, K. (2012). Conservative students split on Romney. The Washington Post. Retrieved
from
http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA289708301&v
=2.1&u=vic_liberty&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w
Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. (1991). Personal computing: Toward a
conceptual model of utilization, MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 125-143.Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/218128965?accountid=12085
225
Thornton, L. (2013). "Time of the month" on Twitter: Taboo, stereotype and bonding in a noholds-barred public arena. Sex Roles, 68(1-2), 41-54. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-0041-2
Tottenham, N., Shapiro, M., Telzer, E. H., & Humphreys, K. L. (2012), Amygdala response to
mother. Developmental Science, 15(3), 307–319. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01128.x
Trevarthen, C. (1998). The concept and foundations of infant intersubjectivity. In S. Braten
(Ed.). Intersubjective communication and emotion in early ontogeny (pp. 15-46).
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Tryon, C. (2013). On-demand culture: Digital delivery and the future of movies. New
Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Retrieved from:
http://muse.jhu.edu/books/9780813561110
Tu, Y., Chou, M., & Lee, H. (2013). Parent-child shared reading meets information technology:
Revealing links between parenting and children's character development. Journal of
Applied Sciences, 13(7), 1029-1036. doi: 10.3923/jas.2013.1029.1036
Tudge, J., Gray, J., & Hogan, D. (1997). Ecological perspectives in human development: A
comparison of Gibson and Bronfenbrenner. In J. Tudge, M. Shanahan, & J. Valsiner
(Eds.), Comparisons in human development: Understanding time and context (pp. 72 –
105). New York: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from
https://www.uncg.edu/hdf/facultystaff/Tudge/jt_eco.pdf
Tudge, J. R., Mokrova, I., Hatfield, B. E., & Karnik, R. B. (2009). Uses and misuses of
Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory of human development. Journal of Family Theory
and Review, 1, 198–210. Retrieved from
https://www.uncg.edu/hdf/facultystaff/Tudge/Tudge,%20Mokrova,%20Hatfield,%20&%
20Karnik,%202009.pdf
226
Tynes, B. M., & Mitchell, K. J. (2014). Black youth beyond the digital divide: Age and gender
differences in Internet use, communication patterns, and victimization experiences.
Journal of Black Psychology, 40(3), 291-307. doi: 10.1177/0095798413487555
U. S. Bureau of the Census. (2010a). State and County Quick Facts. Retrieved from
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/51/51680.html
U. S. Bureau of the Census. (2010b). U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community
Survey. Retrieved from
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013). Employment characteristics of families, 2012. Retrieved
from http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2013/ted_20130430.htm
Valtchanov, B. L., Parry, D. C., Glover, T. D., & Mulcahy, C. M. (2014). Neighborhood at your
Fingertips Transforming Community Online through a Canadian Social Networking Site
for Mothers. Gender, Technology and Development, 18(2), 187-217. doi:
10.1177/0971852414529481
Van Ausdale, D., & Feagin, J. R. (2001). The first r: How children learn race and racism.
Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Van Parys, H., Smith, J. A., & Rober, P. (2014). Growing up with a mother with depression: An
interpretative phenomenological analysis. The Qualitative Report, 19(15), 1-18.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1525425845?accountid=12085
van Meijgaard, J., Shi, L., & Simon, P. (2013). Trends in recreational computer use among
Latino children in California. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 15(2), 437-441.
doi: 10.1007/s10903-012-9684-5
227
van Steensel, R., McElvany, N., Kurvers, J., & Herppich, S. (2011, March). How effective are
family literacy programs? Results of a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research,
81(1), 69-96. doi: 10.3102/0034654310388819
VanderPal, G. (2014). Global leadership and emotional quotient. The Journal of Applied
Business and Economics, 16(5), 137-149. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1647789195?accountid=12085
Vasileiou, M., Hartley, R., & Rowley, J. (2012). Choosing e-books: A perspective from
academic libraries. Online Information Review, 36(1), 21-39. doi
10.1108/14684521211206944
Vaterlaus, J. M., Beckert, T. E., Tulane, S., & Bird, C. V. (2014). “They always ask what I'm
doing and who I'm talking to”: Parental mediation of adolescent interactive technology
use. Marriage & Family Review, 50(8), 691-713. doi: 10.1080/01494929.2014.938795
Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic
motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model, Information Systems
Research, 11(4), 342–365. doi: 10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872
Venkatesh, V. (2006). Where to from here? Thoughts on future directions for research on
individual-level technology adoption with a focus on decision making. Decision Sciences,
37(4), 497–518. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5414.2006.00136.x
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use:
development and test, Decision Sciences, 27(3), 451-481. doi: 10.1111/j.15405915.1996.tb00860.x
228
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of technology acceptance model:
four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/27774033?pq-origsite=summon
Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. (2000). Why don't men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender,
social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior, MIS
Quarterly, 24(1), 115-139. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3250981?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., & Ackerman, P. (2000). A longitudinal field investigation of gender
differences in individual technology adoption decision making processes, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83(1), 33-60. doi: 10.1006/obhd.2000.2896
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of information
technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30036540?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information
technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS
Quarterly, 36(1), 157-178. Retrieved from
http://www.vvenkatesh.com/Downloads/Papers/fulltext/pdf/Venkatesh_Thong_Xu_MIS
Q_forthcoming.pdf
Venkatesh, V., & Zhang, X. (2010). Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: US vs.
China. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 13(1), 5-27. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/275133662?accountid=12085
Venkatraman, M., (2012).Consuming digital technologies and making home, Journal of Business
Research, 66(12), 2626–2633. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.05.022
229
Vinko, M., Brecelj, S., Erzen, I., & Dinevski, D. (2013). Acceptance and use of health
information technology in Slovenian public health institutions: A national survey based
on UTAUT model. Zdravniski Vestnik, 82(4), 234-242. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1350265401?accountid=12085
Virginia Department of Social Services. (2013). Child Day Centers. Retrieved from
https://www.dss.virginia.gov/facility/child_care/licensed/child_day_centers/index.cgi
Völlink, T., Bolman, C. A., Dehue, F., & Jacobs, N. C. (2013). Coping with cyberbullying:
Differences between victims, bully‐victims and children not involved in bullying. Journal
of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 23(1), 7-24. doi: 10.1002/casp.2142
Walker, S.K., Dworkin, J., & Connell, J. (2011). Variation in parent use of information and
communications technology: Does quantity matter? Family and Consumer Sciences
Research Journal, 40(2), 106-119. doi: 10.1111/j.1552-3934.2011.02098
Wang, J., Nansel, T. R., & Iannotti, R. J. (2011). Cyber and traditional bullying: Differential
association with depression. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48(4), 415-417. doi:
10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.07.012
Wang, Q., Myers, M.D., & Sundaram, D. (2013). Digital natives and digital immigrants towards
a model of digital fluency. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 5(6), 409-419.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1506373541?pq-origsite=summon
Warf, B. (2013). Contemporary digital divides in the United States. Tijdschrift Voor
Economische En Sociale Geografie, 104(1), 1-17. doi: 10.1111/j.14679663.2012.00720.x
230
Warshaw, P. R., & Davis, F. D. (1985). Disentangling behavioral intention and behavioral
expectation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21(3), 213-228. doi:
10.1016/0022-1031(85)90017-4
Watkins, S. C. (2010). The young and the digital: What the migration to social networking sites,
games and anytime, anywhere media means for our future. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., & Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive measures:
Nonreactive measures in the social sciences. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Webber, K. (2012). Teaching vocabulary with hypermedia. Ohio Reading Teacher, 42(1), 9-17.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1350245388?accountid=12085
Webster, T. (2010).Twitter usage in America: 2010: The Edison research/Arbitron internet and
multimedia study. Edison Research. Retrieved from
http://www.edisonresearch.com/twitter_usage_2010.php
Weinberg, J. L., Guarino, J. M., Savoy, M. L., Horton, T., & Reed, J. (2012), Identifying
differences in communication technology preferences across the lifespan. Journal of the
American Geriatrics Society, 60(11), 2176–2177. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.04227.x
Weisskirch, R. (2011). No crossed wires: Cell phone communication in parent-adolescent
relationships. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 447-451. doi:
10.1089/cyber.2009.0455
White, D., & Le Cornu, A. (2011). Visitors and residents: A new typology for online
engagement. First Monday, 16(9). Retrieved from
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/3171/3049
Wicks, C. (2010, August). Tech teaching. Pensacola Christian College. Pensacola, FL.
231
Wikan, G., & Molster, T. (2011). Norwegian secondary school teachers and ICT. European
Journal of Teacher Education, 34(2). 209-218. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2010.543671
Williams, D. K. (2010). Jerry Falwell’s sunbelt politics: The regional origins of the moral
majority. Journal of Policy History, 22, 125-147. doi: 10.1017/S0898030610000011.
Williams, K. C., & Page, R. A. (2011). Marketing to the generations. Journal of Behavioral
Studies in Business, 3, 1-17. Retrieved from
http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/10575.pdf
Williams, M., Rana, N., & Dwivedi, Y. (2015). The unified theory of acceptance and use of
technology (UTAUT): A literature review, Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, 28(3), 443-488. doi: 10.1108/JEIM-09-2014-0088
Wong, K., Teo, T., & Russo, S. (2013). Interactive whiteboard acceptance: Applicability of the
UTAUT model to student teachers. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(1), 1-10.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40299-012-0001-9
Wonsun, S., Jisu, H., & Faber, R. (2012). Tweens' Online Privacy Risks and the Role of Parental
Mediation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(4), 632-649. doi:
10.1080/08838151.2012.732135
Wright, S., Fugett, A., & Caputa, F. (2013). Using E-readers and Internet resources to support
comprehension. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 367-379. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/docview/1287029551
Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (2006). Interpretation and method: Empirical research
methods and the interpretive turn. Armonk, New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
Yelton, A. (2012). Who are smartphone users? Library Technology Reports, 48(1), 5-8.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/918710572?accountid=12085
232
Yetis-Bayraktar, A., Budig, M., & Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (2013). From the shop floor to the
kitchen floor: Maternal occupational complexity and children’s reading and math skills.
Work and Occupations, 40(1), 37–64. Retrieved from
http://wox.sagepub.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/search?author1Bayraktar&fulltext
Yu, C. (2012). Factors affecting individuals to adopt mobile banking: Empirical evidence from
the UTAUT model. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 13(2), 104-121.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1021043548?accountid=12085
Yu, K., Lin, K., Han, F., & Hsu, I. (2012). A model of junior high school students' attitudes
toward technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(4),
423-436. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9154-8
Zhou, T. (2011). Understanding online community user participation: a social influence
perspective. Internet Research, 21(1), 67-81. doi: 10.1108/10662241111104884
233
APPENDICES
234
Appendix A: Institutional Review Board Approval
LIBERTY
UNIVERSITY.
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD
December 19, 2014
Carolyn Wicks, Ed.D.
IRB Approval 2040.121914: A Grounded Theory Study Exploring the Technology
Decisions Mothers Make For Their Preschool Age Children in the Home Environment
Dear Dr. Wicks,
We are pleased to inform you that your above study has been approved by the
Liberty IRB. This approval is extended to you for one year from the date provided
above with your protocol number. If data collection proceeds past one year, or if you
make changes in the methodology as it pertains to human subjects, you must submit
an appropriate update form to the IRB. The forms for these cases were attached to
your approval email.
Thank you for your cooperation with the IRB, and we wish you well with your
research project.
Sincerely,
signature present and digitally protected
Fernando Garzon, Psy.D.
Professor, IRB Chair
Counseling
(434) 592-4054
Liberty University | Training Champions for Christ since 1971
1971 UNIVERSITY BLVD. LYNCHBURG, VA 24515 [email protected] FAX(434) 522-0506
235
Appendix B: Colleague Email Script
(Name),
I am conducting qualitative research on the technology decisions mothers make for their
preschool age children in the home environment. The purpose of this email is to solicit the email
contact information of mothers who have an oldest child who is of preschool age (3-5 years of
age). I would like to interview working and stay-at-home mothers, married and single mothers,
younger and older mothers, and mothers of upper, median, and lower household incomes. I will
ask each mother to fill out a fifteen minute demographics questionnaire, participate in a forty
minute individual interview, and participate in one forty minute focus group.
If you know of a mother who might be willing to participate in this study would you email or
talk to the mother to find out if she would be willing to be contacted by me about participating in
the study? If she expresses willingness to be contacted by me, would you copy the mother's
email address to your email reply so that I may contact the mother directly?
Thank you in advance for your help,
Carolyn Wicks, Ed.D.
236
Appendix C: Participant Email Script
(Participant’s Name),
(Colleague’s Name) mentioned you might be willing to participate in the research I am
conducting about the technology decisions mothers make for their preschool children in the
home environment. As you know I am seeking mothers with an oldest child between the ages of
3-5 who does not attend preschool or school. The research is a three step process. First, I would
like to meet you and give you a consent form and a fifteen minute demographic questionnaire to
fill out and drop in the mail. Once I receive this, I would like to schedule a forty minute
interview at a date, time, and place that works best for you. Finally, I would ask you and two or
three other mothers who are involved in the study to participate in one forty minute focus group.
Would you be willing to be a part of this research?
Best,
Carolyn Wicks, Ed.D.
237
Appendix D: Consent Form
You are invited to be in a research study of the technology decisions mothers make for
their preschool children in the home environment. You were selected as a possible
participant because this study investigates the technology decisions of working and stayat-home mothers, married and single mothers, younger and older mothers, and mothers of
upper, median, and lower household incomes who have preschool children ages 3-5 and
live in Central Virginia. Please read this form and ask any questions you may have before
agreeing to be in the study.
Background Information
This study is being conducted by Carolyn Wicks, a teaching fellow at Liberty University. The
purpose of this study is to explain the technology decision process mothers use when making
technology decisions for their preschool age children in the home environment. If you agree to be
in this study, you would be asked to:
1. Fill out a fifteen minute demographic questionnaire and participate in a forty minute
videotaped interview concerning your technology preferences, your technology use,
and your technology decisions for your child.
2. Participate in a forty minute focus group of four or five other study participants to
expand upon individually and as a group regarding technology and your child.
Risk and Benefits:
The study risks are no more than you would encounter on a daily basis. As a result of
participating in this study, awareness of uncomfortable or unpleasant thoughts or
experiences associated with parenting or technology may occur.
There are no direct benefits to participation in this study. Any future publication of
study findings may benefit society through an increase in the social science literature
and knowledge base regarding a mother's proximal interactions and technology
decisions. These understandings may help family and education stakeholders
understand and support mothers in their efforts to nurture and train their children for the
technological and contemporary realities of culture.
Compensation:
Participants will not be compensated for their participation in this study.
Confidentiality:
Your contact information and records used in this study will be kept private. Research records
will be stored securely, and only researchers will have access to the records. Your questionnaire
will be stored in a locked file for seven years and then the questionnaire will be shredded.
Electronic study data will be stored on a password protected computer for seven years and then it
will be deleted. Any sort of published report will not include any information that would make it
possible to identify you.
238
Voluntary Nature of the Study
Participation in this study is voluntary. Your decision whether or not to participate will not affect
your current or future relations with Liberty University. If you decide to participate, you are free
to not answer any question or withdraw at any time without affecting those relationships. If you
withdraw, the video recording and all written materials will be excluded from data collection and
deleted/shredded.
Contacts and Questions
This study is being conducted by Carolyn Wicks, a teaching fellow at Liberty University. Please
send all inquiries via email to [email protected]. If you have any questions or concerns
regarding this study and would like to talk to someone other than the researcher, you are
encouraged to contact the Institutional Review Board, 1971 University Blvd, Suite 1837,
Lynchburg, VA 24515 or email at [email protected].
You may print a copy of this consent form or contact me if you would like a copy of the consent
form for your records.
Statement of Consent:
I have read and understood the above information. I have asked questions and have received
answers. I consent to participate in the study.
(NOTE: DO NOT AGREE TO PARTICIPATE UNLESS IRB APPROVAL INFORMATION WITH
CURRENT DATES HAS BEEN ADDED TO THIS DOCUMENT.)
The researcher has my permission to video-record me as part of my participation in this study.
Signature of Adult: ________________________________ Date: __________________
Signature of Investigator: ___________________________ Date: __________________
239
Appendix E: Questionnaire
Please fill in the blank or check the appropriate circle:
1. What is your age? _____
2.
o
o
o
o
What is your race/ethnicity?
African American
Asian
Caucasian
Hispanic
3. What is your marital status?
o Single
o Married
4.
o
o
o
o
What is your highest level of education?
High School
Bachelor’s Degree
Master’s Degree
Doctorate Degree
5.
o
o
o
Which best describes the total yearly income of your household?
150 thousand dollars and beyond
30 to 100 thousand dollars
25 thousand and lower
6. Do you consider your home to be in a rural/country setting or an urban/city setting?
o Rural/country setting
o Urban/city setting
7.
o
o
o
What is the age of your oldest child?
3 years old
4 years old
5 years old
8. Does your oldest child attend preschool or school?
o Yes
o No
Turn over the page.
Please give as much detail as possible in your answers for questions 9-11.
240
9. Describe the types of technology (smartphones, TV, DVR, gaming devices, computers)
in your household.
10. Who uses the most technology and for what purpose?
11. How does technology influence your role as a stay-at-home or working mother?
241
Appendix F: Transcript Sample
Individual Interview: Aryn
I-Tell me how do you define technology?
P-technology, umm technology is anything that, let’s see I’m gonna have to take a second (pause) technology is
anything that that you would use that is machine based maybe is how I would define it something that or helps you
umm (pause) do something easier besides just your body your physical things.
I-Ok that helps me umm tell me when you first used a computer.
P-ok. The first computer use was probably at school, I don’t think we had a computer at our home so this would
have been like 200 . . . no sorry it would have been would have been in the 1990 . . . (shaking hand) 8? Maybe? I
have to think about when I was in high school but yeah 1998 or around then we had to do it for computer science
and eventually my parents got a computer at our home so it would have been when I was in high school that it first
started.
I-Now tell me about computer science umm did that involve like typing was it part typing class or…
P-it was yeah well typing we had to type on typewriters first before we were allowed to move to the computer and
then once we moved to the computer we typed on the computer it was just a typing class and then after the typing
class we moved to a computer science class where we learned Word and Excel and the basic programs and how to
run through those so..
I-Makes sense. Ok so let’s explore that you said you first used a computer at your at school and then umm when did
you get a computer at home?
P-Probably would’ve been shortly after that so
I-Tell me about the technology that you had in your home, tell me about television use umm
P-We had TV probably we got television when we were probably when I was in middle school and my parents got
cable and it was like a huge deal it was like the biggest thing ever I loved it I mean but we watched a lot of TV I
remember coming home and watching TV and remembering commercials and stuff like that umm we watched a lot
of TV and my parents still do they leave their TV on quite frequently so umm that was probably the biggest piece of
technology when we were younger, for sure.
I-Tell me about when the computer came into the home
P-And that came in yeah, when I was in high school and I didn’t really do a lot on it, like there wasn’t like, you
know what let me go back I think we had a computer before that I’m thinking of when we had gotten the Internet
I-Ok
P-We had one of the DOS computers. Because I remember playing that helicopter game I don’t know Chopper
Command or something that’s all we yeah with yeah but that was earlier so that would have been before I was in
high school probably middle school again
I-Ok so so that means you first the first computer then…
P-Was probably the early the early 90s or yeah would have been at home yup, sorry you’re joggin my memory here
I-(Laughs)
242
P-Yeah and I remember tying on the old yeah like the dos computers logging in with the c something I don’t know it
was yeah a long time ago
I-No me too me too (laughs)
P-And nowadays whoo we’ve come a long way
I-Do you remember when you’re parents first got Smartphones or cell phones…?
P-Oh no ok my mom first got a smartphone just last year
I-Ok
P-She’s had a cell phone since she was in high school when I went to college I had a track phone that they gave me
umm eventually maybe when I was a sophomore but they had cell phones after that so it would have been like 2003
that they got cell phones. My father only had one for his job and my mom got one got on our plan so they used that
one together but I mean my mom had a smartphone last year, and gave it back because she didn’t want she didn’t
want to learn how to use it she didn’t like it so she just uses a regular umm cell phone for when she’s out and about
I-Now let’s explore just a little bit, only because I want to understand your perspective, umm do you think your
mom perceived technology growing up what did you pick up as her daughter?
P-Me growing up or while she was growing up?
I-No umm about as you were growing up. How did you think your mom thought about technology . . . like what did
she think about the computer the cell phone..?
P-Yeah. I don’t really remember her thinking negatively or positively either either way umm (pause) because we
didn’t spend a lot of time on the computer and cell phones we didn’t we didn’t have the the only technology really
would’ve been the TV and she I think she liked it she have five kids so having a TV wasn’t, to her, a bad thing
because it kind of kept us busy at certain times and the rest of the time we were outside so you know I don’t I don’t
think that negatively or positively she influence me either way
I-she (words garbled) shut if off or something
P-Yeah well sure if it was yeah it had to be shut off we didn’t have like time frames but if she needed us to do
something she would say “shut off the TV” and it would get shut off but it was never like “oh you only have like
fifteen, thirty minutes” it was more just like at her (word garbled) whatever she felt.
I-That makes perfect sense.
I-What do you think about technology now?
P-I think I think it’s great it’s amazing it it’s crazy what they’ve done and what they can do and I don’t know hardly
any of it umm but I think it has its weaknesses and I think it has a lot of things that you know bring us closer
together to our families, I enjoy you know, Face timing with my mom and you know just things like that that make
things easier, it makes life easier yeah. Does it simplify life? I don’t think so
I-Expand on that for me
P-I just feel well and I know that you hear this a lot just even on social media and whatever but it’s just like (slight
pause) Pinterest and Facebook those are things were you you see what people are doing and you compare yourself to
them and then you’re like “I would love to do all of this stuff” and you can’t do it and it just makes you feel crazy
and then or like I could be teaching my child this and this and this and this because I have all this information and it,
and I’m the kind of person that if I have information I want to try it or I want to I want to do it research it figure it
out and there’s just so much information available so many things to learn that I feel overwhelmed a lot just by the
243
fact that there’s so much, but it’s also great like I said for learning so you do learn from it just.it doesn’t make my
life easier but well it makes some things easier but it doesn’t simplify it like I said I think it makes it a little more
complex a lot of time I just wish I could just put my phone down and just not think about it for the whole day, just,
let it go but, it never happens it’s the only means of communication I have because we don’t have a home phone or
anything like that so it always I feel like it always has to be around me otherwise I’m I’m missing maybe something
important but.. I don’t know if that answers your questions
I-it does it helps me because I want to see it through your eyes…
P-There you go
I-Alright, now you told me what you think about technology now, now let me ask you this, um, how often do you
use technology? Cause in the questionnaire you told me how you have a smartphone [P – Mhm] and that your
husband uses technology the most so tell me about your use. Give me a, a ballpark.
P-Um, like how many hours?
I-Yeah, like per day.
P-Oh, that’s a good question, it’s probably way more than I would even guess, but I’m thinking probably at least
three or four hours.
I-Ok, and with that, on the smartphone, its calling, it’s email, it’s what?
P-It’s mostly email, it’s, a lot of like grocery lists, like I do all my grocery lists on there, I do, yeah a lot of social
things (no, you can’t touch, you can sit and look) Um, like I said, Pinterest, I spend a lot of time on there, um,
researching for (daughter’s name), just trying to find out new things for her. Um, Facebook, a lot with my mom,
probably daily, close to daily, so, mostly just on my phone.
I-Ok, um, tell me this, if you, you mentioned several things for your smartphones and um, and you have a laptop,
and you all share a TV and an XBOX, um if you could only have one device, what would it be?
P-It would be my phone
I-Tell me why
P-It just makes life easier, like I said, like you’re going down the road I need to know something about like, What’s
open, or if it’s on, if it’s when my husband’s driving he’s like “oh where could we go to eat” or whatever, it’s it’s
right there, it’s available, and um, maps are on there, I mean it’s just everything, like everything I need, or don’t
need really, but makes my life easier, it’s right there. So, I think that’s why I would, plus the Email is right there,
I’m, I’m on the go with the kids all the time, I don’t have time to sit down, open up my computer, turn it on, I just
hurry up, get on my phone real quick, cause I um, cause I do work at church a lot so a lot of different information I
need to know, you know, quickly, I can have quickly instead of having to sit down and, you know, wait for my
laptop to load, cause it takes a long time, and it’s just, it’s just quicker. And I need quick. For my life pretty much.
I-That helps me, um, let me ask you, we’ve talked about personal perspectives and how you’ve grown up, let’s
transition to um, exploring more about your parent perspective, so um, you mentioned uh that your husband uses the
most technology, and you mentioned about (P – ok) his work and his research, who buys the most technology in
your home? Walk me through your purchasing.
P-Buy . . . like who would research it, and like think about it, and buy it?
I-I mean who walks into Best Buy or who (P – oh, my Husband, yeah definitely) Ok
P-He went to school for computer um, business, something business computer related, I mean that’s just kind of his
thing, he loves technology, grew up playing video games. Just knows a lot about it, and I don’t so, hardly anything.
244
So yeah, he would definitely do all the research and he would go and purchase it (“I” – So he bought the
smartphones) I would go with him, I would go with him, that’s because that’s just what we do, we do it together,
we’re family, we do it together, so, but yeah, no, the smartphones come from his, his father, um, the business, his
business, um, pays for him to have a phone, that also pays for me to have my phone
I-Ok
P-So, they, they are the ones that really decide what kind of phones we get, and actually with his new job that he has
[Honey you have to sit], um, it’s not, it’s not a new job, it’s a new position, and he um, he actually is probably going
to get a laptop from that too (“I” – Ok) so, some of it is his father, but I mean, his dad does say, hey, what do you
think is best, and um, he’ll purchase it. (“I” – Ok) Usually (“I” – so) Not the laptop, but right now the phones in our
home (“I” – Ok) are through the business
I-And the Xbox, that was something that you both went in and purchased? Or, how . . .
P-It was something his Mom bought him for Christmas
I-Alright, alright
P-So I mean, the laptop we purchased, he purchased a tablet, a windows phone. (Is this bothering you? With them in
there? “I” – no, no please) A windows tablet, he has a tablet that he uses, um, and we purchased those.
I-Is there, help me, help me see one thing that’s not very clear to me, um, is, is, when you go to purchase something,
are you telling him what you want (P – No) or is it kind of mutual
P-I don’t, well ok, yeah that’s a good question, yeah, and I see what you’re saying, um, yeah, there are things that
are more important to me, in uh, in uh technology, so like, certain programs, I’m a big Word fan, I have to have
Word, I’m always constantly creating documents for church and things like that, so that’s why we purchased the
laptop, at first, and and even then, tablets weren’t that big, you know this is even three years ago, almost four but
they weren’t big then, so I just, I needed a laptop something that would do Word and something that would print, so
we do have a printer, which I didn’t include on that, but that is technology. And so um, yeah, that’s the biggest thing
for me. So if he’s going to buy something for himself, he wants Word, but he doesn’t care so much about printing
off on it, like he just uses his tablet for you know researching and then writing out his notes for church so that he can
preach, teach, and then you know that’s, so he has different, different reasons for having it obviously and then mine
is just, yeah, so yeah we would look through and say, say “hey, what’s important to you” and “what’s important to
him” and then if he was purchasing it completely for me then, I would get my say, but at this point we haven’t really
done that, when we bought the laptop it was for both of us (I – Ok) So
I-that makes sense so you helped me (P- sorry) no, no no, I just want to make sure (P – I’m jumbled in my brain)
Um, alright you told me how much you, that helps me, um here’s something I want to explore, is how often do your
girls use technology, um let’s focus in on your oldest girl, um, if you could quantify it in a day, how much do your
girls use technology
P-I’d say an hour
I-Ok, and television, Xbox
P-And basically it’s the TV (“I” – Ok), Netflix, we don’t have cable, we don’t so um, we just run it through the
Xbox, and they usually just watch Netflix. So it’s usually something educational. Um occasionally, um, probably
like every other day or so, they’ll watch a movie at night. So it might be two hours a day. Um, we didn’t, um. They
don’t have tablets, they don’t have, I mean they’ve got toys that are, you know, electronic but they’re not
technology. (“I” – Ok) I wouldn’t label them that (“I” – so like a leapfrog or something) yeah they don’t have
anything like that, a leapfrog, they have little computers that you know, say the alphabet to them, (“I” – Alright) but
that’s a toy to me (“I” – quite so) Um, although this is funny because the other day after you came, my mom um
texted me and said “ Hey, I purchased ABC Mouse, and, um, for (younger child’s name), and they can let you add
two other people. So she added two other people, which were my kids, to it, and now they’re playing that, like
245
fifteen minutes a day. (“I” – Ok) Each of them. (“I” – That’s very) So, yeah, I guess maybe they’re up an hour and
fifteen minutes Yeah I start thinking about all that, so yeah that’s like really their first thing with technology because
like I never let them, and they play it on my phone, because our computer is, um, I don’t know how you say it, but
like this, the mouse pad (“I” – uh huh) is with your finger, and that’s hard for them to manipulate and control when
they’re, when they’re using those so they use it on my phone cause they can touch. (“I” –Ok) and um, otherwise
they never really use my phone, I mean
I-Now help me know what they’re doing on the phone, like playing apps or games
P-It’s games, it’s an app (“I” – ok) yeah, so they would just, they’re just moving puzzle pieces and just creating a
puzzle, or coloring with it, or um, they go through and count the chickens, its like a lesson thing (“I” – Ok) So it’s
very educational, um, but that’s about all they do, the other thing they like to do on my phone, is look at the pictures
so I’ll just let them scroll through my camera roll and that’s one of their favorite things to do.
I-Ok, and in your um, Honda, does it, do you have videos on the thing?
P-We don’t have a permanent one in the player (“I” – Ok) um, when we’re in the car they listen to CDs. Yeah
I-So, like if you’re waiting at the doctor is that when they use their smart
P-No, we really don’t I don’t really let them do that (“I” – Ok) yeah I like them to learn how to wait without having
to be entertained, I’m kind of old school when it comes to that. (“I” – I’m just I want to) yeah absolutely, (“I” – do
you) yeah, um, so yeah, like today like, I’ll just let them use it fifteen minutes when you leave, [Please don’t drink
mommy’s water, ok?] um, but it’s usually never for like to keep them just busy. I’d rather them go find something
else to do, go you know, use their brains, that’s kind of my thing, I like them to just, be off of technology as much as
possible, I think it’s important for them, and I know you’re going to get to this, so I’ll just, I’ll just wait but it’s
definitely the age we live in, so they have to know it, but they learn it so fast. Like I don’t have to tell them what to
do, they just know. I don’t know if it’s just from watching me, but then, or just putting it all together, but, they
definitely figure it out on their own. Cause a lot of times I don’t even know what to do and then they can do it. (“I” –
Like the swiping and that) yeah, just, yeah, or picking, just knowing.
I-Umm so tell me how you plan to facilitate or monitor your child’s use of technology say in middle school like
when will they purchase uhh cell phones will they buy them will you buy them or umm Facebook how will you
monitor their Facebook account or will you?
P-Right. Yeah umm that those are these are things I haven’t even thought of myself but I know that it will be a
(husband’s name) and I decision and it will be a decision and yeah definitely it will be limited it definitely will be
monitored I don’t know that they would have to purchase their own umm at this point I mean I don’ t I don’t know
yet but it will definitely be monitored definitely be limited umm I mean there’s certain even restrictions on
Facebook like how old they’re even supposed to be so yeah we would definitely follow that that’s I mean that’s
just… that’s definitely something we would…we’re we’re very much we’re gonna follow the rules and then we’re
going to set our own above that you know rules and standards of what they’re allowed to do and I think we would be
pretty strict with it stricter than most I think umm with the limiting it and it it maybe this will help answer the
question you know being allowed to just go with technology anywhere in the house would not be an option umm
being in an open area where we can monitor that definitely you know for I don’t know how long but into high
school for sure and and maybe all the way through and it also depends on the child I think but I think a family will I
mean like I said I haven’t really thought about a lot of it but I think technology anywhere you want would would
would limit would would not be something we would do we would limit it to which rooms you are allowed to be
using it in would cell phones go to bed with you at night probably not they would stay down here you know in the
kitchen or someplace you know the where you’re not having temptations or being on it constantly umm so yeah
there would definitely be limits and that would be umm enforced by my husband and myself and we would come up
with those as a family I think even with the girls sitting down and discussing what they really need it for and what…
you know what’s over over the top, too much. Does that help?
I-Yeah let me, let me run a a scenario that I’ve heard before and see what your reaction would be umm some
mothers are telling me that they they would see themselves uhh like one has a has a doc of and they uhh every night
246
go through and see what their you know contacts list, calls, texts whatever, do you see yourself being that kind of
mother or is that way overboard?
P-See that’s funny because I don’t I don’t even know like I don’t know what you can do I’ve heard like there’s
things that you can do if you’re all on the same line and you can access know where everyone’s been I don’t I don’t
know any of that I I know very little
I-Is that a comfort to you or does that make you shrink back or…?
P-Umm yeah those kind things make me a little yeah make me shrink back a little bit I’m … I don’t yeah I don’t
know I don’t know if I have an answer to that right now umm (pause) I don’t think I would want to be doing that all
the time I think I think the way we raise our family and the way that we hope to raise our family would be trust and
you know if if we had limits and we knew what those limits were…yeah but I don’t I don’t know that might be..i
think to a certain extent we would probably use that..i just don’t know how far we would go and and like I said I
don’t even really know how how how much you can know or whatever I I’m not very familiar with that kind of
technology.
I-Ok. I just wanted to you know kinda probe and see what you know what you think about those things.
P-I’ll be having some good discussions tonight with my husband (laughs)
I-Umm as we wrap up here I want you this umm one of our last questions asks you to go way in the future and make
a comparison contrast, umm when (oldest girl’s name) and adult how do you think she’ll use technology in her
career and life do you think it’ll be like you do, will it be more, do a little crystal balling with me.
P-umm (pause) I don’t know you would think it would be more but I don’t know how much more you can do but I
mean I think our minds are just limited to that because I mean think back to our parents they never thought we
would have what we have now you know being able to see each other across the country on a screen, it’s pretty
crazy, umm, so it probably will…it probably will get I would think probably more sophisticated, it would probably
become a bigger part of their life, every day thing, almost where you would have to have it . . . maybe, to
function…in society.
I-Do you think she’ll parent her girls as you…
P-Nah
I-would as far as technology
P-It’ll be different
I-she’ll be a little tighter, a little stricter or..?
P-The oldest?
I-hmm hmm
P-She’ll be strict. (laughs)
I-She’ll be strict. Ok. Ok.
P-Yeah her personality would would I think tend to be more like mine. I’m an eldest and I I feel like there’s, there’s,
there’s umm personality traits and things that you keep so I think she’ll probably be a little more old school,
traditional but . . . we’re, who knows
(laughs, both talking at once)
247
I-Umm let me ask this as we wrap up and then I I did skip one thing I really want to know but umm if you had a
message for American mothers about their technology choices and you could just, tell them something what would
what would be your message to American mothers?
P-I think it’s just the getting back to the letting technology interfere with umm training your children I just think
that’s a big thing and it’s something I feel convicted about every day I’m not good at it but I definitely think its
something that we need to just stop, and put our phones down, you know put our laptops down and just be involved
in their lives and I’m not saying and and this is you know bad this is portraying me in a bad light because I do it all
the time and so I I’m just assuming that other mothers do that give into that temptation too and I just think it’s
something that, if they’re home and they’re able to be with their kids then you need you need to do that and even
when they come home from work that’s even bigger because they don’t have a lot of time so keeping that
technology at bay or waiting until they go to bed is I think good.. kids need to see our faces they need to know how
to interact socially with people they need to understand you know what it means to look someone in the eye and talk
to them and have conversations, because the technology will come, I mean we all learned it and and that’s just,
they’re gonna learn it and they’re gonna know how to use it, and so we just have to make sure we’re monitoring that
and make sure they understand it’s not the most important thing.
INTERVIEW END
248
Appendix G: Theoretical Memo Sample
Individual Interview: Aryn
Mothers are reflecting on their present circumstances through the past. While other
mothers did more retrospective thinking, Aryn’s quick philosophizing frames her past reflections
to her current technology use situation. She is identifying with other mothers’ reflections about
how little technology they had at home and at school (facilitating conditions) and that her
technology learning has been trial and error. She perceives that technology makes life easier but
not simpler.
Mothers are intentionally choosing technology for themselves and their children. Aryn
uses “quick” devices and evaluates what she purchases based on need. She is purposely not using
technology to help her children learn—this is a connection to the past (learning by trial and
error). Aryn mentioned what others think (social influence, UTAUT model; Venkatesh et al.,
2003) and comparison (person characteristics, PPCT model; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998,
2006) with others on social media. She is aware of social influences related to time spent on her
smartphone and, like other mothers, is refining her person characteristics by limiting the time she
allows technology that takes her away from face-to-face interactions with her children. Like
other mothers, she is facilitating her children’s socialization about learning to wait without
technology.
Mothers are very individual in how they use technology and they want their children to
be like them. Like other mothers, Aryn resists what others think about technology and is selfdirected to what she thinks is best for herself and her children. She is not overly concerned about
the future because she trusts her children to internalize (transfer of training) morality and proper
technology use for themselves.
249
Appendix H: Open Coding Sample
Individual Interview: Ella
Transcript
I-My first question is how do you define technology?
P- (laughs) Umm well (pause, sigh) I guess I would I equate
it with, well I guess right off the top of my head I think
anything that has a screen and that you are watching (laughs)
umm but obviously that’s not the case but umm I guess it’s I
guess any kind of technology would be umm some some
kind of tool that has improved…our living conditions
because I mean tools are technology and but I guess in
today’s age when you think technology you think of
electronics so
I-Well tell me this umm when was the first time that you
used a computer?
P-umm…I was in Middle School I believe, umm and it was
probably in like 1996 I was in 6th grade and my school at the
time had like a computer class that your parents could pay
extra for and it was like he was just the teacher would just
kind of introduce us to the computer like we would play
games like Sims city kind of stuff like nothing
groundbreaking but just to like get used to the computer and
then my parents got a computer maybe before before that or
slightly after that but it was all around the same time
I-Now let me walk though so I know I’m seeing this in my
mind the way you’re seeing it in your mind so Middle school
is when you started and it was kind of something that you
that you had to pay for, it was kind of introductory, tell me
about umm what high school was like, what college was
like, as far as computers?
P-(pause) I remember it wasn’t, I got through most of middle
school with hand written papers and I don’t believe that it
was till 9th or 10th grade that teachers required you to type it
out on the computer and I I remember hating that because I
had no typing skills, and then when I was in either 11th or
12th grade that’s when I had like an actual computer class
where they taught us Microsoft, Excel umm other things like
that I can’t remember everything yeah it was it’s kind of
interesting time because I started middle school everything
was hand written and then by high school everything had to
be typed out and the paper that that the little circles on the
side and had to like catch and then, yeah by college
everything, everything was online
P-But I remember in college as well we had to have, we
were required to have umm an online source and a print
source
I-Really?
P-So it couldn’t all be online
P-And then I think and then for my master’s everything was
online (laughs) so it’s kind of just like a gradual
Open codes, in-vivo codes, and quotes
Defining/equating with screen watching
“tool that has improved…our living conditions”
defining tech as electronics
Using tech first in MS
Paying extra for computer training-parents
Playing computer games
Nothing groundbreaking
Getting use to computers
Writing handwritten papers in MS
Requiring computer typed papers in HS
Hating typing papers because of poor typing
skills
Having computer class in 11/12 HS
Learning programs
Interesting time
Contrasting handwritten reports in MS with
required computer typing in HS
Remembering dot-matrix printers
Everything in college online
Requiring online and print sources in college
Imposing controls on online sources-college
Everything online for master’s degree
Indicating tech advance was gradual in schooling
250
I- That makes-ok now let’s um up for a minute, you’ve
helped me so much with school, tell me, bring me back to
when you’re umm family got the the computer and and what
happened thereafter
P-Umm well in middle school I just looked used it to look up
pictures of cute boys I liked and like movie stars and then
umm I I uhh I would use it for IM instant messenger to talk
to my friends so the only I I the only time I really used it was
for just my own pleasure and then for print-like typing as
like a type writer but that was the only time, I don’t
remember ever really doing research too much on on it
I-Now let me ask you this, what did your…do you remember
what your mom thought about the computer, did she use it a
lot…?
P- (pause) Uhh I honestly can’t remember I remember my
dad definitely used it more than my mother umm (pause)
yeah my mother , my mother didn’t use it very much at all
and it probably hasn’t been since the past three years that she
has become like “computer savvy” (laughs) and that’s
simply because her work requires her to do it so umm but
yeah at home she she rarely got on the computer and yeah I
don’t really growing up ever remember my mom using the
computer umm yeah and just in recent years, she’s now that
she’s a grandma she just uses it to look at pictures on
Facebook (laughs)
I-yes, yes and tell me about Facebook that’s I’m so glad you
brought that up when were you on Facebook did you start in
college or…?
P-Yes umm my roommate told me about this thing called
The Facebook and she emailed them and asked if Liberty
could be accepted as one of the schools there umm because
she was from Massachusetts and she was closer to where it
started so at the time it was still called The Facebook and
you had to have a dot edu umm email in order to get on soo I
still have my email that says welcome to the Facebook from
like 2009 or 200- or no when was that 2005 2004 something
like that but yeah I was a junior in college
Using computer at home in MS
Looking up cute boys and stars w/computer
Using IM at home to talk to friends
Using computer at home for pleasure
Using computer at home for typing
Not doing research at home
Remembering father used computer more than
mother
Becoming computer savvy recently-M/Mother
Work requiring M/mom to be tech
Growing up M/mom rarely on computer
Looking at pictures on FB as a grandma-M/Mom
Learning about FB from friend
Asking if college could be part of FB
Keeping email first welcoming to FB
Starting FB junior in college
I-And your mom, has it been relatively recently since she’s
joined Facebook and …?
P-Umm she shares an account with my dad and they
probably started that maybe 4, 5 years ago, give or take
I-Let me make sure I…two things that I still don’t see as you
do in the home, umm, the computer was it in a special room
was it in the living room?
P-it was in the basement, it was in the basement and we did
have a family room in the basement umm so umm yeah it
wasn’t necessarily, my dad also had my dad had ok I’ll say,
my dad had a computer in his office that was in the basement
and and he would I’m sure he used it to work but I don’t
remember he was a teacher and umm once the Internet came
out then we got a computer for the family like before just my
dad would go on and I would play games like umm Where in
the World is Carman San Diego when I was little and then
Sharing FB account with father-M/mother
Having computer in basement
Computer in father’s office
Using computer for work-dad
Getting computer for family once Internet came
Playing games on computer Carman San Diego
251
once the Internet came then we got a computer for the family
room in the basement that was more like for everybody umm
so
I-Beautiful that helps me kind of see ok yeah
P-It’s hard to remember all this stuff (laughs)
I-I know
P-It’s like man, I got to clear out the cobwebs
I-Umm let me ask you this I’d be remiss since you
mentioned about you know defining technology that’s it’s a
screen and so on I’d be remiss if I didn’t ask you about TV
growing up because that’s technology as well, help me
understand your family and TV watching, was it a lot, how
was it monitored or?
P-Well umm we had TV we did not have cable growing up
so we just had the basic 7, 10 channels or whatever you had
and umm on Saturdays my sister and I would watch cartoons
and my mom would eventually turn it off and tell us we
would had to go play outside or we would become hot house
lilies and umm but my but we would watch it at night like
my I remember my dad would always watch it after dinner
for a couple hours and he still does so we probably watched
a good amount of TV growing up
I-Now was there the same sort of limits on TV watching that
there might be with the computer because you’re mentioning
instant message and looking up people and…
P-Honestly, my parents never really put limitations on the
computer because I was on it so rarely they never felt the
need…
P-So compute- I don’t really remember having any, any
limitations really
P-Um, just ‘cause it was in the basement, it was cold and we
didn’t really wanna hangout there anyway
P-So, it wasn’t that… and, um, for TV, my mom would try
to limit it
P-Um, like when we would get home, we could watch an
hour or two before dinner and after dinner we had to do our
homework, um, and then like I said, in the mornings, um,
like Saturday morning, she’d let us watch some cartoons and
the she’d turn it off and say, you know, “you gotta go play or
go outside”
I-I love it
P-Get out of the house. The hot house lilies
I-Tell me that again…That is marvelous
P-And I think that’s because her mom told her that
I-Okay, perfect, beautiful Well you’ve helped me, kinda,
because I wanna make sure I had a clear view of what it was
like in your house, and then at school, so that helps me Um,
let me ask you this What do you think about technology
now?
P-I think it can be both helpful and a hindrance Um, but I
think it’s like with everything
P-Moderation needs to be used because if-if, um, people rely
on it too much than it-it hurts their ability to socialize, and
Having a computer in family room for everyone
Didn’t have cable growing up
Watching Saturday cartoons
Turning off TV-m/mother
Valuing going outside-m/mother
Warning daughters against becoming “hot house
lilies”
Watching TV for a couple hours-dad
Watching a “good amount” of TV
No limitations on computer because not using
that much
Lacking access/opportunity-cold in basement
where computer was
Limiting television before and after dinner
m/mom valuing playing outside
m/mother saying what was said to her
transfer of training
Thinking technology is both a help and hindrance
Believing “Moderation needs to be used”
Reading about depression from overuse of FB
252
I’ve read reports about the more you spend on Facebook,
you know, the more likely you are to feel depressed
P-Um, things like that, so, ah-like anything, I think it needs
to be used in moderation and just pick and choose how and
when you wanna use it
I-Now you mentioned, um, some good ways. Um, like for
instance you said because you teach online you’re able to
afford stating home and that helps you get some extra
grading done during the day and so on. Um, give me an idea
of-of what a bad use of technology would be from your
perspective
P-(talking to child) Um, I think a bad use, as far as
childrearing, is if my daughter were to just sit with an iPad
all day, and-and never be challenged to do independent or
imaginative play or do anything ‘cause it’ll just suck her in
and she won’t-, the world around her will fade away, just the
IPad
P-So, I think that’s something that I try to avoid but
sometimes I feel like I also have to let her, um, use the IPad
P-And not that using the IPad is necessarily a bad thing, but,
um, if I could say she never uses anything, I’d be hap-I think
I would feel better about it, but with my situation I just feel
like, it’s just, I don’t know have to…
I-Now tell me, help me with one thing…When people
anonymously read your thinking, they’ll want to know
precisely, and I think I know, but let’s get it on paper. When
you say if she could not use anything you’d be happier, just
develop that further for me
P-Well, I, again I’ve read reports, um, they talked about just
how too much-too much time on the computer, on a screen
for young children can be detrimental to their development
Um, and so I feel if she were just on a screen all day, she
wouldn’t, she wouldn’t develop properly, socially or
cognitively
I-Now tell me, as far as you go, um, like what would be, it-it
may hurt her development and I’m hearing that from you,
wh-what about you? What are some of the uses that you’re
wanting to avoid personally?
P-Um, I don’t think there’s any one thing I want her to avoid
altogether, I just think I want to avoid an excess of-of being,
watching too much TV. , being on an IPhone, being on an
IPad, things like that
I-Okay
P-Um,…
I-So the same limit of screen time for her is what you impose
on yourself? Is that…what are some of the controls you
impose on yourself?
P-Um, I never really thought of putting anything on myself
just because I don’t feel like I us-, if-if I didn’t have to be on
my laptop, I wouldn’t…
P-So I guess any limits would be is I’d try to get off the
laptop by eleven o’clock each night because I usually start
working from home, doing my online grading, from eight or
nine to eleven or twelve and for my own sanity and to just
get enough sleep, I have to limit myself
Exercising moderation in the “how and when you
want to use it”
Explaining bad technology use is sitting with an
iPad all day and “never be challenged to do
independent or imaginative play”
Feeling like she has to “let her” use the iPad
Feeling happier if she did not use anything
technological for play
Equating feelings with situation
Reading reports too much screen time effects on
development
Wanting proper social and cognitive development
Avoiding excess with TV and iPad and i Phone
Not imposing restrictions on self because she just
uses tech based on need
Limiting her laptop use for grading and online
work after kids go to sleep and going to bed about
11
253
P-But, my husband, I feel is, he enjoys, like, the IPhone, the
IPad, the laptop, where I don’t get that much enjoyment
from it, I’d rather do other things
P-So, for me saying, like, I have to limit myself, I-I don’t
really go on it for pleasure. I guess I just do it for work
I-That makes perfect sense
I-I’m glad you, ‘cause I just didn’t understand and th-that
really helped me. Now before we go to your parenting
perspective, which you’ve been so beautiful, you know, kind
of alluded to, um, if you could only have one device, what
would that be? What could you not live without?
P-Television
I-Okay, tell me why…I love it
P-Um, I think just from growing up, I would like, Saturday
mornings I’d wake up and watch cartoons, and now when I
wake up I get my cup of coffee and put on the news
P-Um, so, it’s a comfort thing… (talking to child) …um, I
just lost my train of thought
P-It’s comfort, oh and being a stay-at-home mom,
sometimes it’s just kind of the noise in the background helps
P-Um, so, yeah, it-it’s kind of, I feel like, especially when
my kids were younger and they weren’t as interactive it-it
gave me some, not interaction, but able to see adults
conversing
I-Okay, that makes perfect sense
P-Yeah
I-Let me turn to your parenting perspective and I’m gonna
kinda use your questionnaire to help me fill in, um, anything
that I don’t quite have in my mind
I-Now you said that you use the most technology, um, what
I’m interested to know is who buys the most technology in
your home
P-My husband
I-Tell me about that
P-Um, I’m not that, uh, tech savvy, so I usually just trust
him, whatever he thinks is best
I-Alright
P-Um, and, and I guess just like for gifts or graduation
presents or Christmas presents, I mean, I would probably
want a new outfit and he’d want an IPad or he wants the next
phone, where he-he had to convince me to get an IPhone
because I was just fine with my little rinky-dink text phone
because I feel, a lot of times I feel overwhelmed by it if I
don’t understand it right away. So I just throw my hands up
in the air, I’m like “wahh, I can’t figure it out” Um, so he’s
kinda the one that will like push me out of my comfort zone
Be like “oh you-you really will like this” So, he buys it all
I-So help me, I-this is great. You helped me figure that, um,
when-when you don’t understand it, do you just work at it
until, do you kinda self-teach yourself or do you…?
Getting little enjoyment from using devices
Using technology for work rather than pleasure
Preferring television
Equating growing up TV comforts on Saturday
morning with current comforts, coffee and the
news
Reinforcing idea of comfort
Having background noise helps as a stay-at-home
mother
Providing adult conversation when children were
small-TV
Husband buys most tech
Trusting husband because she feels not tech
savvy
Articulating differences of gifting-she wants a
dress, he wants an iPad or phone upgrade
“He had to convince me to get an IPhone because
I was just fine with my little rinky-dink text
phone because I feel, a lot of times I feel
overwhelmed by it if I don’t understand it right
away. So I just throw my hands up in the air, I’m
like “wahh, I can’t figure it out” Um, so he’s
kinda the one that will like push me out of my
comfort zone Be like “oh you-you really will like
this”
254
P-I have very low patience with this so if I don’t understand
it, I will usually call him, um, and just be like, “I need you to
fix my problem”
I-Unders-I can sympathize
P-Just being honest here
I-Absolutely, Um, okay, let me make sure, so, um, you got
your smart phone, take pictures, check, browse social. Tell
me about social media. Um, when-when you’re browsing it,
is it-is it just for you or is it sometimes for parenting things,
or, tell me…
P-Um, usually it’s for me just to get a break, like if
(husband’s name)goes to bed or something and (child’s
name) sitting quietly, I’ll just be like, “Oh, I have a moment,
let me go on Facebook”
P-Um, so that’s usually what it will entail and it’s usually
like five minutes at the most ‘cause then one of them needs
me again
P-So that’s probably what I use social media for most
P-Um, mostly Facebook and sometimes Instagram and then,
um, yeah, that’s pretty much it
P-And then I’ll also try to post pictures of the kids just so
grandparents and aunts and uncles can-can see pictures of
them
I-Alright, Now some mothers, let me just make sure, some
mothers were telling me that they go on, um, Facebook or
whatever when-when their children are occupied just as
kinda like a treat, is that…?
P-It is
I-Is it?
P-Yes
I-Okay, that’s what I wanted to ask
P-And I feel like I can just turn my brain off for a second,
but yes, I would definitely describe it as that It’s just kinda
like a “Oh, let me just look at that for a second and escape
for a little bit”
I-Um, okay, let me make sure, I don’t think you said this so
let me investigate here. Um, tell me how often (child’s
name) uses technology…And I think I saw that she was
using a few educational games. Is that off of your
smartphone?
P-I’ll let her use the IPad for that
I-The IPad, okay
P-Um, but for (child’s name), the most, she usually uses the
TV or Apple TV more than any other piece of technology
P-Um, and then, occasionally I’ll let her use the IPad, um, to
do those-those games like the letters and numbers games But
that’s usually maybe like twice a week
I-Okay
P-So if we’re putting it in a, if we’re doing twice a week, I
suppose we can’t quantify it by day Maybe we can for telfor Ipad…
P-Televis-uh, Television, and I feel guilty about probably
saying how much TV she watches during the day, but
probably like three hours
P-Three, yeah, maybe even four sometimes
Calling husband for tech support
Using social media to take a break
Having a moment to use for Facebook
Having five minutes on FB before child needs her
again
Using FB and IG
Posting pictures for family
Agreeing with other mothers that FB is a treat
Relishing turning off brain for a second with FB
“Oh, let me just look at that for a second and
escape for a little bit”
Using iPad for educational games
Using TV more than other tech-child
Using iPad twice a week for letter and numbers
Feeling guilty about child’s TV watching
Watching TV 3 hours a day-child
Watching four hours some days-child
255
I-Okay, that’s what I wanted…
P-That the TV’s on…
I-Um, see, I’ve got, and you told me, um, IPad
I-Is there any other, you’ve got IPad, television, is there
anything else that she uses that I’m not getting a sense of as
far as, like for instance, in your van, I think you have a van if
I remember, is there a DVD for long trips?
P-No, if we do go on a long trip, we will let her watch
cartoons on the IPad if she starts to get kind of fussing
P-So we’ll use the IPad, um, instead of a DVD player
P-And, um, like sometimes she’ll play with my phone but
really she’ll just scroll through pictures or take pictures of
herself or something, but again that’s just if she happens to
find it laying around somewhere
I-Now let me walk you through a couple scenarios, um, that
I’ve heard and I wanna just get your opinion about this. Um,
in a restaurant, is there ever a time that, um, that you would
want them to use like your phone, so tell me about that.
P-I-I-I, I’m not opposed to that, but honestly don’t remember
the last time (child’s name) has used an IPhone or anything
like that at a restaurant
P-I’m sure-I feel like, I’m sure she has used my-my IPhone
but I honestly can’t remember, it probably was like, yeah
I-So they’re just enjoying the restaurant and the people and
watching and…
P-We choose our restaurants wisely…
I-So tell me about that, yeah…
P-…so, we will go to a Mexican restaurant where there’s
already chips there that she can snack on and the food comes
within five to ten minutes of ordering
I-Okay
P-So, we just don’t put ourselves in a position where we’re
waiting like an hour for our meal
I-See why I ask you this, ‘cause I wanna make sure. What
about doctor’s offices? Some of the mothers were telling me
about doctor’s offices and what they do there.
P-Um, again, I feel like they have books and they have the
fish, and that usually keeps her attention, um…
I-So it doesn’t sound like the IPad leaves the home or…
P-No, the IPad only leaves the home really if we’re doing a
long road trip, ‘cause my family lives about eight hours
away so we use the IPad for…, but, yeah. Uh, yeah, the
doctor’s office, she doesn’t really, I wouldn’t say she’s used
it there either
I-Alright Um, let me have you do some comparison and
contrasting with your own childhood experience, how is
(child’s name) growing up differently with technology,
IPads, television, phone, and how is that different than
yours?
P-Um, well I-I guess with-with the ability to have IPhones
and IPads, um, obviously I never had those, um, and so
sometimes I think like, man, what did my mom do, like
when we had those like eight hour drives or whatever
Watching cartoons on iPad for long trips
Using iPad instead of DVD player
Scrolling through pictures on mom’s iPhone
Picking up mom’s phone and scrolling through
pictures
Not opposed to using something to distract child,
but not part of normal practice
Difficulty remembering if that has happened in
their experience
Choosing restaurants wisely
Picking a restaurant with chips for child’s
snacking.
Wanting food to come quickly for sake of child’s
waiting
Don’t put selves in a position to have trouble with
wait time based on restaurant choice
Using books and looking at fish during wait time
at doctor’s office
Using iPad during long road trips
Indicating daughter doesn’t really use i Pad
outside of home
Wondering what own mom did on long drives
before iPad and iPhones
256
P-Um, I would say our upbringing is similar in that I
probably, I love watching cartoons on TV and she loves
watching cartoons on TV so that would be how it’s similar
P-Um, but yeah, she knows how to use the IPad, she knows
how to use the IPhone, um, she knew-she knows how to use
the-the DVR player, but I probably knew how to use the
VHS player when I was her age
P-And I think kids just acclimate to whatever technology is
at their fingertips
P-Like they just catch on very fast
I-Now let me ask you this specifically because I wanna make
sure everyone reading this anonymously understands what
you’re thinking
P-Sure
I-Um, how did she learn all these things? Does she watch
your husband, does she watch you, do you think it is
modeling? How did this happen?
P-Uh, definitely modeling
P-Um, yeah, I mean, ‘cause it probably, it probably started
with the IPhone when she was younger and probably things
like going to the doctor’s or, um, things like going-going out
or long-long road trips
P-I remember having little baby games on the phone and
that, it’s, just like things like that
P-She’s watched me, we just got a PlayStation, we’ve had it
for a week, and she already knows how to work it, just from
watching me do it
P-So yeah, so definitely just from watching and then, and
sometimes, you know, like with the games, I’ll sit down and
show her how to do it and how, where to put the letters and
where to put the numbers
P-So some of it is intentionally showing her how to do it and
other times it’s just, she just picks it up just from watching
us do it
I-She sounds like a quick learner. Um, is there, what I’m
eager to know is who else makes technology decisions for
(child’s name) Um, would it be your husband, would it be
grandparents…?
P-Um, her grandmother, um, watches them two hours a
week, um, because I have to do um, live chats with my
students
P-So usually I’ll go upstairs and grandma will come and um,
and watch the kids and a lot of times it is putting on a movie
or, um, my-my mother-in-law is very tech savvy so she has
games on her IPads and on her IPhones that she’s shown
(child’s name) as well
P-She’s probably more tech savvy than I am
I-Okay that really helps me kinda compare and contrast. Let
me ask you this, um, if we could put it in these terms of strict
or not strict, who do you think controls technology more?
Do you control technology more for (child’s name) or does
grandma?
P-I do
Comparing her love of cartoons with daughters
Contrasting daughters knowing how to use
iPhone, iPad, DVR with her growing up knowing
how to use VCR
“I think kids just acclimate to whatever
technology is at their fingertips”
Catching on very fast
Identifying modeling as the way her daughter
learns how to use devices
Believing daughter first saw iPhone use modeled
when going to the doctor or on trips.
Remembering baby games on phone
Watching mother play new PlayStation and now
knows how to work it
Showing daughter where to put letters and
numbers in a game
Intentionally showing her how to do things
Picking it up just from watching parents
Putting in a movie while babysitting-mother-inlaw
Mother in law is tech savvy and shows
granddaughter games on iPad and iPhone
Believing mother in law is more tech savvy than
she (mother)
Controlling tech more than mother in law
257
I-Okay so you’d be more strict if you put it in those terms
P-Yes, I try to limit it more where I feel grandma or dad
would just let her play on the IPad all day or just keep
putting movies in
P-Um, so yeah, I’m definitely the warden on at least
technology time
I-Alright, and I’m glad you menti-so how uh, let me ask you
this. I-I understand, uh, with grandmother, tell me about
your husband. You tell that me he’d be more inclined to
have her play, uh are there any other technology decisions
that would be different or the same as yours that he would
make for her?
P-Um, I think, just the amount of time probably
P-I mean, we’re in agreement with what she can do, for the
most part
P-Um, I think one of the things I don’t like, I don’t like
(child’s name) watching cartoons on the IPad
P-Um, I want, I would rather just have the IPad used for
games, like the-the educational games, and there’ve been a
couple times I’ve had to step in with grandma or dad and just
be like, “Don’t, please don’t let her do that on-on that, on the
IPad
I-Umm now you’ve I want to make that I’ve covered
everything that you want me to get, umm my next question
is how do you oversee or control your child’s technology use
and if I’m if I’m understanding everything from what you’ve
said and everything you said on your questionnaire it sounds
like time is is a controlling umm you you mentioned about
not watching television on the IPad is there any other way
that you control or oversee technology that I haven’t heard
or I’ve missed?
P-Yeah I I think the biggest thing is just time amount I’m all
for her trying different, if something new comes out I’d be
all about her trying that too but just with time constraints
because obviously she won’t limit herself and just like she’d
eat only cookies all day she would just watch cartoons all
day if I let her
I-That makes sense. Umm I want to ask you a similar
question that I asked you for (child’s name) and that is if you
could own only one form of technology for her what would
it be?
P-Probably the TV as well umm yeah just because it’s part
of our routine umm if I have to shower or as we’re having
this conversation the TV kind of works as a babysitter in
some ways and it’ll entertain her so I can do things that
require more focus or something like take a shower where I
don’t want her to get into too much trouble while I am you
know not available (laughs)
I-Totally understand. Umm now I wanna kind of start going
towards the future and umm the next couple questions first is
how do you think (child’s name)technology will change
when she enters preschool, school and so on?
P-I’m sure it will be even more advanced than it is now umm
and where I mean I imagine that she will be using the
Identifying with being strict
Limiting tech more than mother in law or
husband
“I’m definitely the warden on at least technology
time”
Differences in control between husband and wife
is amount of tech
Agreeing together on what child can do just not
amount
Wanting child to associate iPad with education
games not cartoons-mom
Stepping in and asking mother in law and
husband to honor her device identification values
(TV for cartoons, iPad for learning)
Identifying a child’s inability to limit themselves
Recognizing daughters natural desire to watch
cartoons all day if mother didn’t control it
Same preference as self-TV
Identifying TV watching as part of routine
Identifying TV as babysitter so mom “can do
things that require more focus”
Believing technology will become more advanced
as daughter goes through school
258
computer on a regular basis umm when she when she’s in
elementary school umm I wouldn’t be surprised if schools
started having a bring your own device policy for for work
or research umm I know a lot of schools are are considering
having students each have their own IPad umm so yeah I
expect all of that either laptops of IPads that she will just
start bringing her own to school where I would bring tons of
textbooks to school
I-So you think, if I’m if I’m hearing you right, sounds like
there will be a lot at school will that transfer to the home are
you gonna keep it limited like you’re telling me now or…?
P-If I think so you’re asking if I think there will be limits at
school as far as technology or?
I-No umm like you’re mentioning a lot of technology use at
school do you think that she’ll bring her IPad back home and
will you will she use technology more at home because she’s
bringing it from school?
P-Oh yes I believe the older she gets the more technology
she will use and the more I will have to control it umm yeah
I I guess as a mother, I want to make sure that she can
interact with people and that umm she… I guess …I want
my child to be kind, I want them to be well-liked, I want
them to be able to show love to other people and I feel too
much technology would interfere with her ability to do that
umm so I feel like as she gets older she will want umm
IPhone, IPad all that stuff and while I’m not opposed to it I
just know that I’ll definitely have be having to put a lot of
time limits on it umm and limiting it for her safety and just
for her development as a person
I-Ok. We’re gonna investigate that because you kind of
jumped even into-you’re doing great it’s wonderful umm let
me ask you this, as far as cell phones do you foresee you
buying it for her or her working for it and her purchasing it
herself?
P-I ohh I (pause) I definitely think it will be something that
will have to be earned and maybe not necessarily earned as
she has to get the honor roll but earned that I know I can
trust her or that she’s shown herself responsible enough to
have something like that umm and I also see it me being the
last one to consent to it I think dad will be like “sure” and I
will be the one being like “I don’t think I’m ready for this”
I-Now let me ask you before, because I want to explore her
as a teenager (coughs) pardon me, but I want to make sure
that I umm that I run a scenario by you, what if a school say
she’s in first grade and they say you know “we want you to
read with her you know 10 minutes a night and we would
like it to be on an IPad or something digital rather than a
standard book” what do you feel about that?
P-Umm I, I would think, I would not like it, I would have a
negative view towards it umm…however I would be foolish
to not realize the day and age in which we’re living and just
like…
P-I want (child’s name)to be umm be able to interact and be
a kind and caring person towards other I also want her to be
successful in whatever vocation she chooses I want her to be
Daughter will be using computer on a regular
basis
Anticipates schools having a bring your own
device policy
Identifying some schools polisices about iPads
Comparing her daughters bring a device with her
(back in the day)bringing textbooks to school
Believing daughter will use tech more at home
because she uses it more at school
Believing she will have to control increased home
use
Wanting daughter to interact with people
Wanting child to be kind and well liked and show
love to other people—feeling tech would
“interfere with her ability to do that”
Earning a cell phone
Knowing that child can be trusted with a cell
Seeing herself as being last one to consent to a
cell for her daughter
“I will be the one being like ‘I don’t think I’m
ready for this.’
Having a negative view toward e-books rather
than a real book at home
Rehearsing desire for child to interact and be kind
in tech age
259
successful in her academics and I know technology I mean,
everyone’s on, she will need those skills in order to do it so
if a school are going to require such a thing, I mean for 10
minutes that would that would I would it but I would just
think “well that’s dumb” (laughs)
I-Yeah is there, do you see foresee any issues between
school and home as far as technology go that you would
draw the line and go “whatever you’re, whatever you’re
doing that’s fine but we’re not gonna do it” is there ever
anything that pops in your mind?
P-For a school to require and me just say I really don’t think
so? Umm I think if they were to do something where the, I
think where the teacher interaction is put aside for her to be
taught by a computer or something umm I would have a
problem with that… umm yeah I think if if something were
if the social aspect were to be taken away and the computer
were to be put in place instead I would, I can’t think of
anything specific but just when you asked me that’s what I
think because I think the social aspect of school is just as
important as the academic aspect
I-Good I’m glad you made that clear for me. Umm, I want to
dive in just briefly into more of how you’ll facilitate or
monitor umm her technology use as she matures and kind of
go off on things we’ve talked about umm when do you think
she’ll get her first Facebook account?
P-Ohh, probably not till (pause) I would like to say high
school but I feel realistically it will be closer to middle
school
I-Umm let’s talk about how umm again how we’re
monitoring umm (child’s name) use when she say is high
school middle school let me run you a scenario, I’ve had a
mom tell me that one of the things she plans to do with her
family is to have everybody line up their cell phones when
their at the house for the recharging and then umm she and
her husband plan to go through their contact list and monitor
whatever every night, how do you feel about those sorts of
things?
P-If I felt that extreme of a measure was necessary I
wouldn’t let her have the phone to begin with, not that I
think that’s necessary a bad idea but I just, I just feel like if
Iand maybe I maybe my opinion of it will change once I get
there because like all things when you’re not there you think
one thing and then once you’re in that situation but I think if
I I might look through her phone if I was suspicious or if I
suspected something umm but I think because my parents
were very trustworthy of me, I never had a set curfew as
long as I told them were I was and it was reasonable so I
think that’s how I would operate with with (child’s name)
umm you know like unless she gives me reason to think
something’s up
I-Umm tell me this. I’ve also heard some other things that I
want to get your opinion about umm that phones or laptops
say when she’s in middle school you know middle school
high school that phones or laptops or any technology would
Desiring success for child in vocation and
academics
Recognizing child needs tech skills to be a
success
Foresees conflict with school if teacher
Interaction is sacrificed for computers doing the
teaching
Issues with social aspect of school being taken
away by technology
Believing “the social aspect of school is just as
important as the academic aspect”
Wanting to put off daughters FB account but
deciding realistically it will be MS
Feeling a parent checking a child’s cell contact
list is extreme…not a bad idea but an extreme
idea Believing views on controlling technology
will change in the future when faced with certain
situations
Controlling daughters tech use if she gives cause
for suspicion
Equating own parents trust with the trust she
hopes to have in her daughter
260
be used in a family place and not in the bedroom, how do
you feel about that?
P-I would agree with that umm (pause) and and again the
computer was in open an open space in our house so umm
(pause) yeah I would agree with that umm I’d probably I
probably wouldn’t forbid her from using her IPhone in her
room umm but I think I would probably again tell her she
needed to put it away by a certain time like “you can use it
but by 9 o’clock, 10 o’clock it needs to go on the table, the
kitchen table or somewhere else” just because I would be
afraid that she would stay up all night you know not get
sleep
I-Ok, umm Is there any other way facilitate, monitor,
oversee, when she’s…?
P-Umm I would definitely have some of the safeguard
software on the computer where you can’t look up certain
questionable material or inappropriate websites umm so I
would I would definitely do that for sure
I-And if she accesses something that is, you know it she gets
around the safeguard somehow, the conversation is that
going to be you or your husband or both of you?
P-Umm it would, I would definitely be involved umm and
my husband could be in it or he could not be in it umm just,
just because I feel like I’m more of the communicator in the
household so umm but I think we would agree we would talk
together and discuss agree upon if there needed to be a
consequence or what actions to take it definitely would have
to be agreed upon by both of us
I-Let me ask you in my last couple of questions, I want
(child’s name) to be exactly at your same period of life, how
do you foresee that as a stay-at-home mom, do you think
she’ll have an online job do you think she’ll use it in much
the same ways, what do you think?
P-Umm (pause) yeah I mean I imagine that that’s definitely
a very good possibility and I’m sure she will use TV as a
temporary babysitter for when she needs to take a shower in
the mornings umm so I I think I would hope that she would
want to limit her children as I’ve also tried to limit her with
certain things but uhh like I said I would hope that she would
just have discernment to know when it could be positive but
not in ex-excess umm so
I-Do you think so she’ll probably use technology more but
try and limit, more or just about the same because she’ll
limit it…
P-Yes I think there will be more I think there will be more
avenues of technology that is available to her (talks to
daughter) umm but I would hope even that even though there
might be more more out there that there would still be you
know constraints, because I think like when I was growing
up all we had was TV and really slow computer games but
my mom still limited us on it but even though there’s more
for (child’s name) I still try to limit her on it but I’m sure
because there will be more options her kids will spend more
time on technology than she does just as she spends more
techn- time on technology than I did growing up
Agreeing with the idea that computers be in an
open space in the home
Allowing iPhone in room
Putting a time on when the cell needs to go on the
kitchen table—for the sake of child’s sleep
Having “safeguard software” to limit
“questionable material” or “inappropriate
websites”
Addressing concerns with child’s tech use
together
Believing she is the communicator in the
household
Agreeing together on consequences for tech
related infractions
Believing daughter will parent as she does—
using TV as a babysitter
Believes daughter will parent and limit her
children’s tech use in a similar way
Hoping daughter will “have discernment” to
know when tech use is positive and when it is in
excess
Believes daughter’s future will have
“more avenues of technology”
Hoping that more technology also means
constraints
Comparing daughter’s future with her past.
As mother was parented by own mother, so a
transfer of training to her daughter regardless of
the increase in the amount or advances in
technology
261
I-Do you think parenting will be harder for her because of
technology or easier?
P-I question that daily, I wonder was it easier for my
mother’s generation was it easier for me because I have it? I
think like “well, what would I do if like the TV went out for
a day” but if I never had it then I would never have missed it
and my kids would maybe be better at playing independently
or things like that so (laughs)
I-(laughs) One last question umm if you could send a
message anonymously to all American mothers, what
message would you send them?
P-I would say umm (pause) it sounds cliché but “do what
works for you” I know for myself a lot of decisions I make
for my children are based upon guilt and I’ve had the older
generation of mothers give me their opinions on what they
think is right umm articles on Facebook will tell you, other
mother’s will tell you what you need to do but umm as far as
technology I think really do what works for you and what is
healthy for both you and the kids because I think being able
to have TV helps me be a better mother because I’m able to
just step back for a second and say like “ok I’m just gonna
put this cartoon on and I’m just gonna sit here and have a
quiet time so I don’t you know lose my temper or anything
like that” so yeah… technology like I said like when you
said like “what could you not do without” I couldn’t do
without a TV because like I would lose my mind sometimes
(laughs) umm and then but then you know I’ll hear older
mothers say “don’t let them watch TV, just turn it off turn it
off” and so you feel guilty and you feel torn umm you know
and sometimes it’s like “hush hush like I don’t want them to
know that she watches TV” you know things like that umm
so yeah that would be do what do what works best for you
and what’s healthy for you and for your children
I-Ok, now before I shut this off is there anything that I might
have missed in your individual interview that you want to
get down on paper?
P-Umm no I just think like with technology while it can
have negative aspects to it I wouldn’t be able to be a stay-athome mom without it so in that aspect I’m really grateful for
it because then I’d miss out on a lot.
Interesting introspection/situational
reflection****(below)
“I question that daily, I wonder was it easier for
my mother’s generation was it easier for me
because I have it?”
“I think like “well, what would I do if like the TV
went out for a day” but if I never had it then I
would never have missed it and my kids would
maybe be better at playing independently or
things like that so”
“do what works for you”
“I know for myself a lot of decisions I make for
my children are based upon guilt and I’ve had the
older generation of mothers give me their
opinions on what they think is right”
Reading articles on FB about what is best
Tech-wise
Doing what works best for you in all things not
just tech
“TV helps me be a better mother because I’m
able to just step back for a second and say like
“ok I’m just gonna put this cartoon on and I’m
just gonna sit here and have a quiet time so I
don’t you know lose my temper or anything like
that”
Couldn’t do without TV
Hearing older others advise turn off the TV—
resulting in “feeling guilty” and “you feel torn”
Hiding how much TV daughter watches from
others
Believing technology can have negative aspects
Feeling grateful for technology so she can work
from home
Technology helps her not “miss out on a lot.”
262
Appendix I: Axial Coding Table
Category
Subcategories
Reflecting
situationallyForming
technology
preferences
Time
(contextualizing)
Open codes, in-vivo codes, and quotes
“I feel like as I have grown so has technology”
“I feel like technology followed my age group”
Growing up in small towns-equating with limited tech availability
“I feel like I am of the generation that was the first to grow up
with technology”
“my husband and I joke that our kids will never know what a
Blockbuster video store is”
“much more advanced” than when she was growing up
“I didn't go to school with a SmartBoard, I'll have you know, I
don't appreciate it!”
Wanting children to have life experience raise them m/mother
“the revolution of everybody getting on instant messenger”
More advanced experience at home: “I still think my more
advanced experience with computers was at home
Technology not expected in college
Looking to the past for answers
“there isn’t a generation before me saying ‘oh this is how we dealt
with this’—it’s hard”
Spending little time with cell and computers--more with TV
“My three year old can run circles around me, compared to what
we were doing back then”
“nowadays whoo we’ve come a long way”
Equating job with age and and getting a cell phone
Everything in college online
Using tech in college more and more
Everything online for masters work
Indicating tech advance was gradual in schooling
“I played, we built a treehouse, we played with frogs, we picked
wild berries…when I think about the things that could have killed
me…but you were only normally inside for punishment”
Thinking technologically ready for college because of
homeschooling
Researching in college a norm
Recognizing tech transitions in classrooms at college
Comparing texting to IM
Remembering how her absence made dad learn technology
Growing up preferred to do activities rather than technology
Merging technology because of marriage
Equating interest with desire to watch TV--Then/now
Explaining mom’s learning by trial and error
Lacking in computer training-mom
Comparing school computer labs to what is there now
“These kids don't know what a record was”
Contextualizing time-Internet starting
“I remember when I finally got tapes, when I finally got a CD,
Yaaaaaa! I was like “I got a CD!” You know
Now, what is a CD? Put in iTunes”
Contextualizing early stages of Internet use
Contextualizing time by remembering non digital library use
Contextualizing time by contrasting information seeking w/Google
Remembering how FB has changed
Own mother ambivalent to computer
263
“technology was very sporadic, it wasn’t reliable”
Technology in the past was exciting and mysterious--Combination
of inaccessibility and restrictions of parents
Everyone had their own computer in college
Remembering the TV was always on
Remembering mom turning off the TV and warning daughters
against becoming “hot house lilies
Valuing going outside-own mother
Getting to HS computers used in everything
Growing up equating tech with timewasting
Contextualizing her current TV watching with that of her mother’s
“excessive” TV watching
TV personal preference: “like being in front of it on for a long
period is such a turn off for me”
After college computer became part of personal life
“there was a big separation between technology and personal life
until that point”
Growing up riding bikes and playing outside
“playing outside all the time when that was normal”
Reading a lot of books growing up
Having gmail account
Using AOL
Using a computer the first time at 14yrs old
First used a computer in school in MS
Getting computer for home in MS
First computer use in MS
Getting Commodore 64 in HS
Remembering reel tape to play computer program
First time using computers in pre K at school
Using computer for first time at school
Using tech first in MS
Using computer at home in MS
Starting FB junior in college
Firsts-Getting a cell phone second year in college
Getting Internet in HS
Driving=cellphone
Using IM end of HS start of college
Keeping IM on all the time
First one to have cell-dad
Remembering firsts-Google starting
Remembering first laptop after two years in college
Remembering first computer class in 7th grade
Clarifying first at home not school
Remembering firsts –cell in HS
Using computer for first time at school
First used a computer at home
Remembering first search engine
Using computer first as preschooler
Remembering first computer use in school
Using Instant Messenger
Using the Facebook
Having a cell phone
Purchasing a smartphone
First to have cell phone
Getting your college on the Facebook
Status of early picking cell number—one she still has
264
Facilitating and limiting
conditions
Achieving status-Gmail invitation
Getting a VCR “oh gosh, such a big deal”
Getting Nintendo for Christmas
In kindergarten when Nintendo purchase for family “such a big
deal”
Watching adult TV shows not meant for kids
Remembering Duck Hunt and the gun you could point at the
screen “hot commodity that year”
Remembering first family to have a nice desktop computer that
could print and get on the Internet
Remembering first among friends to have IM and email
Bring computer from work
Originally Facebook was college only
Work required own mom to be tech savvy
Growing up own mom rarely on computer
Relating mom’s tech use to work
No limitations on computer because not using that much
Remembering a tech childhood
Parents leveraged tech in curriculum
Remembering governors school prepared her better for college
“She had five kids so having a TV wasn’t, to her, a bad thing
because it kind of kept us busy at certain times and the rest of the
time we were outside.”
Thinking technologically ready for college because of
homeschooling
“very high tech family”
We kept up with technology
When there was advancements in tech, “we had always had the
next one”
Had awesome tech for the time
Uncle who worked for NASA
Buying technology for work
Dad being engineer for Erickson “always respected technology
and knew what the need for it was”
Having a computer lab
Discovering tech things because of parents work as recruiters
Parents did not upgrade computer—became obsolete
Professors using tech more to communicate with students
First online classes “didn’t really work well most of the time”
Own Mom using computer to supplement eclectic homeschool
curriculum
Teachers requiring typed projects
Mom “very big on” technology
Remembering mom had no technology during growing up years
Mom purchasing cell phone for daughter despite grandmother’s
objections—freshman in HS
Remembering mom did not use computer a lot
Own mom worked three jobs so cell phone helped her feel safe as
a latchkey kid
Parents didn’t know how to use home computer
Got Internet at home in third year of HS
Own mom pushed technology use in HS
Bringing computer home from work-dad
Own mom did not get on computer very much while she was
growing up
Starting in second grade school computer labs
265
Facilitating and limiting
conditions (cont.)
Growing up as a missionary kid m/mother
Not having modern amenities-m/mother
Growing up active outside m/mother
Saying you have to go outside and play m/mother
Desk top brought to college was from church where dad worked
Growing skepticism of technology m/mother
Fearing technology would raise children m/mother
Own mother very comfortable with computers
Own mother never scared of tech
Dad and she financed HP laptop through best buy as an upper
class man
Reflecting on own mom’s excitement to upgrade to newest thing
Doing computer work in library because that’s where Internet
access was in college library and computer labs
Learning about FB from friend
Turning off TV-m/mother
Not having a computer at all at home? “I got to use computers in
school, we were still able-it-it wasn't a full-fledged need to have a
computer, it was more of a luxury that you could or could not
have”
Bring computer home from work-Father
Relating dad’s job to computer ownership
Learning to type at 7/8 because of computer
Professors requiring online resources
Remembering mom never needed a cell phone
Hanging out with dad involved TV
Using technology because of bad weather
Buying tech for work
Wanting to take computer science class
Talking her out of it—friends
Friends demanding-get Gmail account now
Preferring to go see if a professor was in rather than email
Parents-“tried to make sure we had, you know, basic
understanding of them, but they weren’t very educated in them.”
Buying cell—parents for child
Having only one computer in home
Having only three channels of TV
Using IM in the kitchen on computer
Not having cable till middle school
Parents big TV watchers but she was a book reader
Growing up with three televisions at home
Siblings were gamers but she “stuck to books mostly”
Using cell as an emergency
Own mother hesitant about technology
Remembering mom, who was a nurse, got more comfortable with
computers as healthcare industry became more computer-based
Parents wanting her to use her cell to stay in contact with them
while she was traveling with high school clubs
Remembering old family DT worked slowly
Typing in code to make figure in game move
Having to type :// to access video games
“didn’t have a whole lot of focus on computers at home”
Having college Spanish professor who wanted all work turned in
on floppy disk
266
Sister encouraged her to join FB: “she was like ‘Facebook, you
have to do this you can connect with people’ I was like ok
whatever and I signed up for it.
Parents big TV watchers
Equating Indiana and small towns and not having much
technology
Equating limiting conditions to a region of the country(South) and
rural
Remembering feeling of family was computers are for people who
need it for work
Remembering cell phone was large and could only be used in car
Indicating technology was very slow and inefficient
Computer in parents’ bedroom
Computer in living room
Mom was “very up on all the technology”
I mean I was always impressed as a high school student with how
in the know my mom was about technology because most people’s
parents were just like “oh what’s this, I never used one of these”
and my mom really I mean she knew all the cutting edge stuff she
would read you know PC magazine and stuff like that”
In college nobody had computers-went to lab
Having little technology growing up
Second year of college shared computer with sister
Lacking access computer in basement
Typing various code to operate computer
Going to the computer lab
Having only 10 computers in the entire school-Mexico
Lacking access to Internet—just floppy disk
Not having Internet till MS/HS
Placing computer in office=work
Lacking opportunity-Father controlling Internet to when he was
there
Remembering not using because of house heating
Using computer lab in college because not one of the “blessed
ones” who had a laptop
Lacking access/opportunity-cold in basement where computer was
“having a computer in your home was more so for persons who
could afford it because it was so much more expensive”
Having technology in public spaces at home
Computer owned by family-centralized
Using Internet in the library in HS
“TV always highlighted like you know the most privileged
situations so you see kids who were playing on different, you
know, game devises”
Looking really fun
Wondering what it was like
Not having exposure
Noting tremendous expense 1,500 dollars for laptop
Sharing home computer
Lacking access- computer purchased for home in HS
HS had “basic library computers”
Having computers in labs at school
Parents paying extra for computer training at school
Having computer in basement
Computer in father’s office
Using computer for work-dad
267
Learning through trial
and error
Getting computer for family once Internet came
Having a computer in family room for everyone
Lacking technology in standardized testing
Not cutting edge technology in college classroom
Having computer labs
Hating computer class-feeling intimidated because didn’t like tech
that much
Imposing controls on online sources-college
Limited access logging in with c prompt DOS
Lacking access to personal computer two years into college
Computers not in individual classrooms, in computer labs one
computer lab for each school: elementary, middle, and high
Remembering computer moved to kitchen before senior year of
HS
Lack of access-basement
Remembering computer in dad’s office garage
Remembering moving to grandparents—no computer use
Remembering computer in parent’s bedroom
Having only one computer in the house
Home computer dad’s for work
Lacking opportunity in school due to funding
Lacking access to upgrade due to price
“Not a whole lot available to us”
Having computer class once a week
Using what technology is on hand due to life situation
Remembering elementary school computer labs
Lacking cell use because of college building structure
Learning program for job
Learning to stay ahead of children
Knowing is preferable to owning
Preferring all-in-one devices-younger
Preferring devices that “a step back from the latest” some older
Contrasting learning new technology vs. learning technology
upgrades
Remembering ease of use for others
Nobody knew how to use word
“tutor yourself on how to use Word”
“I was slow to get on the wagon, I still am, but um, I personally
learned-taught myself on a typewriter” at home
“he had to convince me to get an IPhone because I was just fine
with my little rinky-dink text phone because I feel, a lot of times I
feel overwhelmed by it if I don’t understand it right away. So I just
throw my hands up in the air, I’m like “wahh, I can’t figure it out”
Um, so he’s kinda the one that will like push me out of my
comfort zone Be like “oh you-you really will like this”
“I made myself-because I realized, you can't survive without
knowing the computer, without at least knowing the keystrokes”
Remembering didn’t know how
Trauma of turning in assignments on disk with trial and error
Learning tech she believes she should have learned in school
“you're constantly trying to regroup and grow”
“I would just go, in tears…“It’s gone I can’t find it, I can’t,” and I
would like have saved it under the wrong directory or something,
because you didn’t understand what a file folder was, you didn’t, I
mean I understood it was saving it on that disk”
268
Linking school use with
activities
First job out of college working in a technology-based distance
learning program—“ I felt like there was a little bit of a learning
curve there”
Responding to learning computers through trial and error “I mean,
that's what I HAD to do, to be a good employee, or a good
student”
Learning to read Reader Rabbit in ES
Remembering teacher smart board use
In HS teachers used LCDs and laptops
Doing assignments online in college
Taking keyboarding class in ES and MS
Learning to type with computer
Taking a very basic computer science class in HS
Making PPT presentations for English class in HS
Using Internet a lot in college
Keyboarding class learning how to play piano with computer
program
One old computer in every room of school-it “just kind of sat
there”
Newly built school with “cutting edge computer lab” in MS
learning how to do word processing
Uploading papers in college
5th grade school got the Internet
School was “pioneering” Internet access and teachers didn’t know
how to use Internet because they did not have access at their
homes-MS
Using Internet for pen pal through email
Required to get FB account as part of high school history class
project: “I was very against the project because I had resisted
Facebook for a long time, I didn’t like the, you know, the thought
of sharing my personal information, but it was a requirement so I
went ahead”
MS taking typing class
Using computer “seen as recreation” in schools
Getting all work done in school could go play Oregon train on the
computer
Doing DB online in college
Researching through websites for college
Learning to type on computer was first computer experience in
school
Using paint and playing Oregon Trail in school
As a junior in college registered for classes online
“super excited” about computerized registration for college
Really excited because “I could get up and register for my classes
in my pajamas”
Playing Oregon trail in ES
IM-“that’s pretty much how we communicated across campus”
Alphabet games in PreK
Learning to type at school when 15 years old
Computers in lab in MS
Pull out for CS class
Learning computers for accounting class
Taking computer classes in HS
Researching in computer lab in community college
Learning to type domains
Researching online rather than using books in library
269
Linking home use with
devices
Researching online in HS as a homeschooler
Remembering doing AR with computers
Typing papers for high school
Using spreadsheets in school
Researching online-HS
Analyzing credible online sources
Learning hardware functions in school
Playing computer games in MS
Requiring computer typed papers in HS
Having computer class in 11/12 HS
Learning to type on a computer as an elementary student
Increasing tech use with teachers
Remembering school first
Nothing in elementary school
Typing in middle school
Taking tech class
Learning spreadsheets
Remembering elective course in MS
Using IM in college
Remembering not much technology in HS
Using email
Teachers using tech
Parent running website for school
Remembering communication posting in college
Graphing with calculators in college
Putting HS syllabi online
Typing research papers at school
Using IM more in college
IM in college alot
Receiving college scores online
Submitting college papers online
Emailing professors
Taking online classes
Not needing computer work for school
Learning to type in MS and HS
Using IM and Facebook in college
Learning to type in 5th
Learning how to use Internet at school
Registering for classes online
Taking college classes online
Learning how to do Excel and PPT in MS
Using Commodore for typing games
Playing a typing game at home
Common thing to have laptop or computer in the home in HS
Using computer at home for email and IM
5th grade got Internet at home
Playing Nintendo
Using IM at home
Getting Cable (need) football season
Using a Commodore at home at 6 or 7
Using computer for educational purposes as a homeschooler
Mother was “completely obsessed with like movies and stuff”
Mom to children-TV and movies they can have an effect on your
mind,
Mother “would try to get us to read books more”
270
Perception and
intention
Doing what was done growing up---“we always just say, "TV is a
treat!" It's a special thing once in a while, it's not something that
we do every day.”
Remembering Atari as a symbol of computer types
Using computer for projects @ home for school in MS
Using Mac for learning games
Identifying device in home
Watching Saturday cartoons
Having computer at home and at school in Mexico
Having desktop since third/fourth grade
Listening to radios and grandmothers records
Using technology for movies
Playing video games at home
Remembering software at home
Playing a lot of typing games at home as a homeschooler
Looking up cute boys and stars w/computer
Using IM at home to talk to friends
Using computer at home for pleasure
Using computer at home for typing
Not doing research at home
TV=“the biggest piece of technology when we were younger, for
sure”
Getting TV in middle school
“when I was in middle school and my parents got cable and it was
like a huge deal it was like the biggest thing ever”
Watching a lot of TV
Remembering commercials
“TV is a treat” transfer of training
Equating preference for noise with m/mom
Growing up was never quiet
Relating devices to mom
Watching Saturday morning cartoons
Remembering device at home
Linking home with device
Watching little TV
Using Nintendo for games
Using Xbox to stream Amazon Prime
Using Computer for Instant Messenger
Linking home with dot matrix printer
Typing reports at home
Helping mom (grandparent) with devices
Giving devices (gifting, or passing along)
Collaborating with others-dating
Technology is amazing
Crazy what technology can do
Thinking technology has weaknesses
Thinking technology brings families closer
Believing technology makes “life easier”
“I think they definitely use it more and rely on it more than I did”
“infiltrated society almost to the point of being like a fault”
Thinking technology is overwhelming
“we have to really watch and balance carefully our digital
consumption”
Getting iPhone last year
Appreciating what technology does for us
Appreciating that tech keeps us in touch with people
271
Using GPS to get around town
Wanting not to go back to the old days
Loving that all devices are condensed into one
Not wanting to go backwards from a smartphone
Everything done on phone
Reflecting on how a radio, clock and computer are combined now
into a smartphone
Respecting technology more now than in the past
Changing importance of technology
Technology is a great tool and it's an annoying tool because people
lose themselves in it.”
Technology is indispensable
Technology is a benefit “have access to a lot”
Parts of technology are overwhelming
Using texting for spur of the moment efficiency—example going
to the museum
“he leads the way, I did the thorough investigation portion of it,
and we made a decision based off of that together”
Thinking technology is very interesting
Technology-“it’s a blessing and a curse”
Own mother needs lots of help—even checking email
“I would say just the variety of technology and how everything
has become so much more digital these days”
Differences in today’s technology and yesteryear—it can travel
anywhere with you and provide information and produce
memories immediately
Communicating with family in Mexico
Using apps to transition to life in America
Using a translation app to identify unknown words
Knowing how to apply English words to Spanish meanings using
apps
Preferring having something on constantly
Disliking quiet-technology helps
Daughter and siblings offer mom support
Own mother gives back smartphone to daughter-- did not want to
learn to use it
Advancements in technology “just ridiculous”—“I feel like I can’t
keep up with them anymore”
Believing technology is very practical and good
Making life easier not simpler
“I would like the record to show that I got my IPad first, and that
my parents thought it was cool so they went out and got IPads”
Working from home because of technology
Assisting others-Mother only got I Pad because children got it for
her
Being impressed by technology
Intrigued by technology
“for them there’s these expectations of technology because of
where they are in history and how at this point their expecting all
this from their technology and being able to interact with it”
“I want to include it because it’s, it’s such a part of life right now
and it’s going to get more and more so as my kids grow up”
Making money for family because of technology
Watching other writing program code
Technology use “Moderation needs to be used”
Calling husband for tech support
272
Promoting
intentionality in
technology use
Developing moral
person characteristics
Facilitating
socialization
Learning texting and email with friends help
Telling own mom how to do it-not remembering afterward
Helping own mom with devices--can’t help because its jobspecific tech
Having to teach mother in law “whereas my daughter she already
knows how to navigate a smartphone”
Making VCR work for grandmother who was raising her
Keeping age appropriate “no, you’re too young to do that”
Asking self if that is what she should do:
“I'm sure I could but is that where I should spend my time? Is that
what I should do?”
Honoring personal convictions
“I know that’s one thing that I don’t want to, you know, tell her,
don’t have the TV on, because that’s just a personal conviction for
in my home”
Missing out on sense of community
Trying to fill a void in their lives
Teaching religious values
“I want my child to be kind, I want them to be well-liked, I want
them to be able to show love to other people and I feel too much
technology would interfere with her ability to do that”
Teaching body image
Teaching racial equality
Teaching gender respect
“I'm trying to be careful that I'm engaging the people that I'm
around too”
Wanting child to associate iPad with education games not
cartoons-mom
Stepping in and asking mother in law and husband to honor her
device identification values (TV for cartoons, iPad for learning)
Teaching children how to engage technology in the “right way”
“my parents didn’t like Facebook, they had a lot against it was
very much a concern that was brought about by them and I kind of
enforced that personally”
Staying in touch but not in contact but with friends through FB
Not talking to the person for six months but can see kids growing
up on FB
Preferring calling to texting
Using TV and social media to know what is going on in the US
and Mexico
Going on the Internet gives her answers about American culture
Keeping up with friends all over the world using FB
Technology is “ever present” difference in childhoods
Remembering she had the latest technology growing up but it was
in a desktop at home--not mobile technology like her children are
experiencing
Communicating with husband during work hours
Using social media to take a break from mothering
Posting pictures for family
Mexico to America children the same:
“I remember when I was a little girl, the games were house,
cooking, dolls, all those things, not games but toys in reality. But
now, the children are focused on Xbox, the Wii, tablets…They
don’t make games like before. I believe they’ve forgotten them
now because children live in technology”
Agreeing with other mothers that FB is a “treat”
273
Relishing turning off brain for a second with FB
“Oh, let me just look at that for a second and escape for a little bit”
Now using FB to post pictures so extended family can see children
“When we get a gift from someone, we sit down and write
a thank-you note That's polite! That's what you do!”
Not being able to read emotion through text
FB defeats purpose of having a HS reunion
Rekindling friendships through FB
Technology helps her Rejoice with friend asynchronously because
of mothering schedules
Having no satisfaction with only technology-mother
“I wonder if they will rely on it to entertain them and not wanna
go out and play or go do other things and when was growing up, I
had to just find something to do, go play with a friend”
Interacting with family without technology
Feeling trapped in house- stay-at-home mom, tech helps
Providing adult conversation when children were small-TV
Feeling very isolated at home when Internet goes down
Keeping up with family through technology
Keeping in contact with husband through texts real-life things like
potty training success
Using FaceTime with family even though they live close by
Enjoying one on one socialization with daughter
Like, that’s really, my husband does not understand Facebook.
He’s like, “This is a waste” And but I really, I feel like as a mom
at home, some days that’s your only connection with the outside
world
Accountability through husband with FB password has to log her
on
Talking is preferable to texting
Playing Wii as a family
Reading about depression from overuse of FB
When something wrong write in in an email
Really having conversation with technology?
Mother says of self that she had more “freedom” to go outside and
play(safety reasons not tech reasons)than son now does
“I can do it in the little in between times, when the kids are busy
doing something
Having to find a balance between tech and non-tech activities
Difference in childhoods? “They have ACCESS to a lot of nicer
things”
When we get a gift from someone, we sit down and write a thankyou note. That's polite! That's what you do!”
Explaining bad technology use is sitting with an iPad all day and
“never be challenged to do independent or imaginative play”
Thinking son watches more TV than she did growing up because
there is a TV in the kitchen
“Truly you have to at some point say that like “I'm not going to
talk to you in real life, I don't care what your pictures look like”
Equating drama with Facebook
Teaching children to wait without technology
Phone-“it’s the easy go to babysitter at the table”
At a doctor’s office- “if I can’t read them a book, or if I can’t just
like talk to them and entertain them, the phone is the go to thing”
Technology-helping at Dr. office to keep son occupied
274
Facilitating learning
Technology not at doctor’s office—socializing and reminding
boys to answer doctor’s questions
“She has an immune disease so she can’t touch things when we’re
out and about.”
Not opposed to using something to distract child, but not part of
normal practice
Don’t put selves in a position to have trouble with wait time based
on restaurant choice
Using books and looking at fish during wait time at doctor’s office
“it’s I’ve always been kind of turned off to it because I think
there’s real value in learning to wait”
“I don't like going to a restaurant and seeing the children on
smartphones”
“I think children need to learn how to engage with people, they
need to learn how to sit and eat their dinner, that kind of thing”
“I just kind of roll my eyes at it because I’m just like really like
you could be talking as a family or playing something”
Opposed to kids watching tablets in grocery store “you don’t need
a television show while you’re in the grocery store”
Handing children an iPad is a helpful a helpful way to kind of
distract them
Restaurant has DVD player on the table for the kids
Daughters tablet allows her to receive email from parent
Keeping in touch with child through InnoTab
“working long hours like we do can definitely you know, lead you
to miss the other person, you know, you still want to have a
connection with your spouse”
Encouraging alphabet and phonics learning
Kids not really into LeapFrog yet—using phone for ABC mouse
Technology “really opens my options as far as learning and
growth and development as like a person”
Learning through trial and error-daughter on LeapPad
Making profile on LeadPad for daughter
Using tablet for playing English games
“Like if there’s something that I don’t know, I can easily grasp it
through technology, by picking up my phone or computer or
anything like that.”
Using tablet for Spanish grammar
Just like in Mexico, you go to school…when I am doing things,
my son is on the tablet, games, and the same with the television.”
Using TV to familiarize daughter with English
Father teaching how to use iPad
“they’ve watched, it’s what we’ve done in our house so they know
how to do it”-Anita
Believing son is more advanced than she was in technology skills
Valuing how the Internet answers her questions
“at this stage, they are more advanced then I was at their age”
Valuing daughters imagination and wanting to play teacher
Realizing there “has to be two sides… time where she can use her
mind, use her hands, color and play, and other times where she has
to use the technology”
“You put so much into technology and we lose our minds”
Just got daughter an InnoTab because she showed interest
Swiping through mom’s pictures
Customizing education through homeschool to child’s interests
Daughter using tech three hours
275
“when I was three I was starting to read, you know, playing
outside a lot, making mud pies… whereas my daughter she
already knows how to navigate a smartphone”
Daughter using tablet to draw
Showing daughter where to put letters and numbers in a game
Intentionally showing her how to do things
Picking it up just from watching parents
Using iPad for educational games
Using iPad twice a week for letter and numbers
Contrasting daughters knowing how to use iPhone, iPad, DVR
with her growing up knowing how to use VCR
Just got daughter an InnoTab because she showed interest
“we want her to be at the cutting edge”
Son using PhotoBooth to take selfies-“ we didn’t know he knew
how to do that”
Daughter using tablet to draw
“I think kids just acclimate to whatever technology is at their
fingertips”-Ella
Using the tablet for math and English language reading
Identifying modeling as the way her daughter learns how to use
devices
Believing daughter first saw iPhone use modeled when going to
the doctor or on trips.
Remembering baby games on phone
Watching mother play new PlayStation and now knows how to
work it
“I’m probably like the cutoff for people who know how to do
everything the old-fashioned way”
Giving children their “phones” (really iTouch) so they can play ed
games while she gets work done
Passing down iTouch to children as she upgrades her phone so
they can play education games
“their talking to devices to get what they want, their touching
devices to get what they want”
Learning how to use built in mouse on laptop
Using apps on mother’s phone
Daughter knows how to move her phone icons
Daughter knowing about selfies from teenagers at church
“it is surprising what he is able to do by himself and to turn on
buttons”
“I don’t know if it’s just the age and the development part of it just
learning how to look at something and figure it out but I’m sure a
lot of it is just observing us and remembering and seeing that
manifest itself in his life”
Didn’t like that son “gravitated toward” computer learning
because mother would like to be the one to teach them those things
through human interaction
Using the Jake game to capture son’s attention and assist in potty
training
Daughter does SnapChat
Daughter identifies the process of video buffering
I don't wanna read ten or twenty or fifty other people's recipes Just
show me a good one
I'm a learner, I want to learn, I want to research but at the expense
of what?
Asking mother “Mommy, is that going on Facebook?”
276
Managing time and
monitoring content
Watching Russian cartoon on You tube
Believing daughter is picking things up
Dad teaches her games on devices
Unlocking mothers phone
Having technology as an aid
Helping reinforce learning
Valuing hands on stuff
Using Net Flix rather than having “traditional television”
Teaching daughter to care for technology-by putting it back in its
case and charging it
“there still has to be tangible realness to the learning side of
things”
Taking pictures off a phone
Differences in growing up? “I had a dictionary she has a phone”
Mom wondering how her daughters just know…watching her.
Kids figuring it out on their own
Girls not interested in LeapFrog not engaging enough
Watching videos and scrolling through pictures and taking pictures
on mom’s smartphone
Mom doesn’t know how but daughters do
Girls use tech for two hour basically TV Netflix for
educational…movies occasionally
Son loves TV (an hour a day)
Learning shapes and tracing
Learning numbers and colors
Difference in childhoods: “mine was things, touchables as far as
like books and so on, hers is DVDs, sounds, music and anything
animated”
“I’m not going to hand my baby my phone to turn the pages and
feel the colors and then chew on it… There are certain elements
that, like, their brain needs to learn about through the real thing”
Homeschooling necessitates computer
Answering boys questions with a You tube video
“they could see it and they could see it and learn and that’s where I
appreciate technology”
Mom for self- Choosing blogs over books because of amount of
time
Concerned about children not going through the process of
math(counting) just using smartphones to calculate
Mom for self- Having friend come over to show how rather than
web searching
Mom for self-“I'm a learner, I want to learn, I want to research but
at the expense of what?”
Using technology to see the world outside-as a stay-at home mom
Mom for self-“there’s just so much information available so many
things to learn that I feel overwhelmed a lot”
“I think there's nothing like reading a real book as opposed to
reading something on a Kindle.”
“I think at this stage in life right now I’m thinking about what has
to be done today, and during the day and if technology fits into it
then maybe”
Have to keep changing online business to keep up with people
hacking and producing “workarounds”
Giving children their “phones” (really iTouch) so they can play
education games while she gets work done
Seeing self as most strict in controlling screen time
277
“It’s kind of a struggle like to decide how much you want your
kids to be using technology, but at the same time it’s one of those
things where sometimes you just have to give in if I wanna get like
cleaning done or something. Sometimes I just have to.’
Identifying TV watching as part of routine
Identifying TV as babysitter so mom “can do things that require
more focus”
If boys are using iPad “it's because I said that it was OK for them
to play, and it's in a circumstance that I would be OK with”
“There have been times where I've felt really guilty, where, like
during naptimes, it’s like just, hey, go watch yet another movie,
because I just need that time by myself, and um I've moaned to my
mother, how, I just go, “I'm not a good mom” and she says, “Well
do you get things done?” “Well, yes, I get things done, I got the
bathroom cleaned this time during naptime” and she goes, “Well!”
and so I know my mom would.”
“I'm limiting much the same way my mom limited us”
Scared that technology makes things too accessible
Own mother giving children more access than mother herself
would
Grandmother letting boys watch Curious George on the iPad
Preview-daughter “is like very sensitive to stuff”
Exchange with her own mother, “I told her, ‘Do not under any
circumstances,’ because she like stays a day a week when I work,
and I said, ‘Do not, under any circumstance—you are not to show
her Frozen.’ And she thinks I’m nuts.”
Using computer all day for job
Everything in moderation
Enjoy “binge watching” TV shows through Amazon Prime
hour and a half I would say maybe an hour and fifteen minutes
children’s tech use
“we don’t want to make her life focused around technology”
Watching a cartoon for mealtimes if husband is not there
Worrying about daughter’s safety online
Having son play in his room for an hour and a half if not napping
Believing she has the most control over technology because she
spends the most time with children—husband will do oversight of
cartoons and action heroes
Mom thinks she is stricter than grandparent
Kids use more tech in the home than mother: “So, for example,
I’ve downloaded a ton of apps on there for reading and phonics
and math and they’ll be sitting on the couch playing their games,
doing their letters, numbers, and colors, and all that stuff and I’m
probably like in the kitchen loading the dishwasher So, I feel like
they use more of the technology than I do”
Believing both are strict on sons technology use
Being selective in what she believes on the Internet
Feeling guilty about child’s TV watching
Godmother gifting daughter an Xbox 360 to “make her a gamer”
Kids will go three or four days without a screen “but then on the
day that we do, it’s usually because I have a hundred things to do
that day and it’s like ‘yay cartoon binge.’”
Husband helping her know what is good and bad as far as cartoon
action heroes
Husband saying no to power rangers “As far as anything else goes,
he just defers to me”
278
Not wanting children to see technology as “we do this, all the
time” because “the society is heading anyway and I don’t really
want that”
Controlling tech use of son based on amount of time and content
“so he turned that on for our son one day and I had to let him
know that was probably not age appropriate for a three year old
(laughs) so he just hadn’t thought about it and he was happy to
comply”
Watching TV 3 hours a day-child
Picking up mom’s phone and scrolling through pictures
Limiting tech more than mother in law or husband
“I’m definitely the warden on at least technology”
Doing crochet after work because “I’m burnt out, if I look at
another screen, I feel like my head is going to explode, you know?
Working from home means having “technology with me all day
long”
Daughters use tech for about an hour a day
Mother doing things she need to get done while daughters are
engaged with technology for an hour
Differences in control between husband and wife is amount of tech
Agreeing together on what child can do just not amount
Identifying a child’s inability to limit themselves
Recognizing daughters natural desire to watch cartoons all day if
mother didn’t control it
Looking at IG in mornings at friends pics
Interfering with getting housework done
Posting to IG in evenings of her kids
Using tech for about three hours personally
Perceiving she is more strict than father or babysitter
Gaming closely monitored
Believing she is more strict
Viewing self as more strict in tech control
Feeling like she has to “let her” use the iPad
Using DVD player in car for long trips
Feeling happier if she did not use anything technological for play
Equating feelings with situation
Reading reports too much screen time effects on development
Scary how much information people can find out about you
Worrying about inappropriate pop-ups
Worrying that daughters aren’t developing non-screen skills—
“because technology is kind of a crutch”
Trying to facilitate creativity through non-tech activities
Believing she is more strict about the TV watching “because I
grew up in a house where it was on all the time” and “I don’t want
that for my kids”-Lainey
Wanting proper social and cognitive development
Avoiding excess with TV and iPad and iPhone Bringing Leap Pad
along for long trips
“sometimes they have access to too much”
Never using technology to keep them busy
Buying groceries online(saving time)
Sister is babysitting and puts cartoons on to entertain-mother
would rather this not happen…
Wanting filter on information-not options, quality
Exercising moderation in the “how and when you want to use it”
Paying bills online
279
Consuming digital limitedly after work
Having tech downtime
“we have a lot of websites blocked on our personal computers to
make sure she can’t access them by accident”
Pediatrician conveying research about no more than two hours a
day of screen time
Pressure from pediatrician about screen time
Believing excessive screen time will affect child’s brain
development
“Is this getting in the way and preventing them from being future,
creative individuals?”
Being intentional about time management
Addicting influence of phone/social media
Valuing smartphone during nursing for reading
Disappointed in self that read random blogs that seemed a waste of
time
“if I didn’t make a conscious effort to get them outside or make
them go play, like, he would sit and watch, he would sit and watch
TV all day if he could”
Setting goal for an hour or less on technology-mom
Texting is valued because no time to have a real conversation but
can say hi
Listening to CDs in car-kids
Wanting to FB only once a week-mom
Children use tech 2 hours a day
“Okay, you’ve already watched TV today, so I don’t want the TV
on again, anymore ”
Rationalizing can’t do everything you see on Internet
Technology use time is “it’s probably way more than I would even
guess,”
Balancing being a working mom and being a stay-at-home mom is
really challenging and I don’t have anyone older who is like, “You
know like, when I had little kids, you know…” Like I don’t--that
doesn’t exist. So, um, we’re really paving our own path, figuring
out how to do it right now.
Technology is good but “really scary”
Worrying that things are “too accessible”
Mother identifying herself as the primary tech decision maker in
the home
Comparing her decisions with husbands—she is concerned about
their development
“I’d rather them go find something else to do, go you know, use
their brains, that’s kind of my thing, I like them to just, be off of
technology as much as possible, I think it’s important for them,”
Making sure kids are occupied and then tending to work
situations:
“Usually it’s the TV or the IPad because that’s something that will
like guarantee that their attention is focused. If I put the TV on,
they will stay here. If I put a puzzle in front of them, you know, I
don’t know maybe a minute, two minutes till they’re bored then
they’re coming back to me for attention so I’ll secure my kids with
something I know will keep their attention and then, you know,
attend to the work issue.”
Worrying about pop-ups/advertising
Grandpa puts on sponge bob and “And I was like, “That is not age
appropriate a cartoon”
280
Evaluating need
Working from home makes it hard to engage your children in nontech activities because you have to do your job
Wanting children to be outside playing
Prioritizing children’s engagement when meeting work deadlines
“you know all these emails coming in and bosses asking me when
I you know, “you gotta get this done, you gotta do this stat”
Information on web can be misleading(medical)
Limiting movies to every other day
“So it just can increase anxiety, fear, panic by Googling
something, like you really have to know what you're reading and
researching”
Previewing movies/shows ahead of time
“I like Instagram better than I like Facebook because you can
really be more private and really be more choosy”
Navigating less strict levels of monitoring with grandparents
Keeping phone always on person for emergencies
Choosing not to have cable
Avoiding the comparison trap
Not imposing restrictions on self because she just uses tech based
on need
Limiting her laptop use for grading and online work after kids go
to sleep and going to bed about 11
Getting little enjoyment from using devices-mother
Using technology(other than TV) for work rather than pleasure’
Smartphone tablet and computer “they’re all important parts of my
everyday
Equating growing up TV comforts on Saturday morning with
current comforts, coffee and the news
Having background noise helps as a stay-at-home mother
Being paid for online product testing via Amazon credit which
then transfers to need purchases
Buying new toys for children with Amazon credit
Ordering groceries online husband picking them up
Intentionality of simplicity and convenience in “old timey cell
phone”
Loving tech for the “convenience for myself and my stage of life”
“I would like the record to show that I got my IPad first, and that
my parents thought it was cool so they went out and got IPads”
Buying everything online with free shipping
Getting discounts on diapers through Amazon having them deliver
in 48 hours
Buying technology for daughters gift because “we just wanted to
buy her something nice that she would enjoy and learn from, we
didn’t want to buy her a ton of useless toys”
Wants husband to buy tech with good picture taking, fast speed,
big screen, and “can it come in pink?”
Customer service problem she handles that because husband
believes she is more persistent
Using tablets for children because of simplicity and
customization(LeapFrog/LeapPad
Using smartphone for mother because functionality and size
Using laptop before having a baby made it impractical
Using laptop is cumbersome
Preferring iPad for children
Picking up the phone is easier for Internet access
Using phone for accessing Internet during nursing
281
“nursing sessions now where I’ve got twenty minutes where I
can’t move anywhere, so, “Alright, and here’s my phone…”I think
it’s gotten to the mentality where you can’t just sit still, you have
to do something…I don’t know if it’s, I don’t know if it’s that my
mind is constantly going, or if I don’t want to sit still and do
nothing”
“he can pull up the game all by himself he doesn’t need me to turn
it on he can touch you know he knows letters if it says “touch this
letter find this number” he can totally do that by himself”
Traveling for long periods TV in car but not during normal nap
time while driving
Husband instigating tech purchases “Hey! You should get a tablet”
She says “so he's the one that introduces me to technology”
“He's the one that initiates it, like, "I really think that you would
like this, and these are the reasons.’”
Preferring FaceTime to talking on the phone
Preferred device is iPad
Doesn’t like to talk on the phone
Researching and buying done by husband
“so I just let him know what I need and he kind of carries it out
from there so I could say “I need texting, I need picture
messaging, I need to be able to get on the Internet wherever I am
and it needs to be compatible with Google mail” that kind of
thing”
Recounting first experience with non-laptop device(iTouch)
Playing games, enjoying apps replaced by phone rather than other
device
Husband buys most tech
Deciding both on technology to buy
Gifting technology to each other
Making joint purchasing decisions with husband
Believing FB is just a habit
Would choose MacPro for son…not a fan of tablets:
“I’m just not a fan of the tablet and maybe it’s because I haven’t
used it as much, but I like typing, and I have the smartphone that
has the touch screen and I hate it…but I can see for my son who’s
three, touch screen is a lot easier. He can pull up the game all by
himself. He doesn’t need me to turn it on he can touch, you know.
He knows letters. If it says “touch this letter, find this number” he
can totally do that by himself.”
“I mean we do have grandparents that are really generous in fact
they’re the ones that bought the IPad and gave it to us”
Trusting husband because she feels not tech savvy
Articulating differences of gifting-she wants a dress, he wants an
iPad or phone upgrade
Using Instagram for online business “flash sales”
Using online sales to make money
Purchase technology together
Collaborating together for tech purchases
Husband using PC because of work requirements and she is a mac
person because she is creative and artsy
Preferring something different for herself than for her child
Thinking “what’s the best technology we can get for the least
amount of money”
She tells him the need, he researches and confirms, she buys it
Enjoying facetiming doesn’t cost anything
282
Given a lot of devices
Getting a WIFI only iPad because of price
Preferred device Xbox and phone
Will have television “till it dies and then we’ll buy again”
“I don’t want them to think that like every time they’re in the car
they need to be playing with something or watching something”
Friend purchased leap pad for children but would not have
purchased by self because too advanced
Husband researching online for best product and deal then wife
goes out and buys it while at work
Technology doesn’t simplify life
Technology making life more complex
Wishing could put phone down
Husband making final tech decisions
Grandparents sending movies
“you know we’re not flashy when it comes to technology”
Getting what you pay for with technology
Wanting technology that last
Getting good customer service
Tech reviews are not conclusive
Knowing what to spend money on is hard
Seeing tech as an investment is difficult
Preferring MacBook and Smartphone
Using phone to choose restaurant
Using phone fore email
Needing “quick technology” opening laptop is not quick enough
“and I need quick”
Not thinking about phone for whole day
Using smartphone for email and doing grocery lists, social media
and researching on Pinterest
Using phone fore email
Single mom buying the tech for home
Needing “quick technology” opening laptop is not quick enough
Using technology for “I use them a lot for research or personal
development, more just, um, the immediate kind of needs” (email,
social media and music)
Cell phone only means of communication
Feeling cell has to always be around her
Not wanting to miss anything important
Ordering food online
Phone is preferred device because of all in one
Doing research and buying upgraded tech for family-mom not
husband
Using phone as camera to record and share
Using iPad during long road trips
Indicating daughter doesn’t really use iPad outside of home
Gifting tech for Christmas
Technology helps daughter with immune disease not touch
anything but the iPad
Children don’t own their own technology
“I just understand the technology, like, I find the buys, I find the
deals, and I have the time to search for them”
When husband does buy tech she interrogates him and says she
could get a better deal
Not using laptop, preferring smaller all in one devices
283
Valuing
individuality in
technology use
Context
(Changing)
Using small, immediate on devices in contrast to long start up
laptop:
Tech helps take real-life not staged pictures
Perceived need recording memories through phone
“If I lost my phone all of a sudden, I’m like, like you feel choked.”
Ordering on Amazon makes motherhood easier
Preferring phone for functionality, entertaining kids and
emergencies
“Umm but I mean they’re trying obviously to force everyone into
the smartphone thing but I mean for us, I’m at home, with the kids,
and we have WIFI, I don’t need the 3G, I when I do go out, really
the only phone I need is a telephone in case of emergency”
Praising quality of iPod touch camera verses large more expensive
devices
Putting in a movie while babysitting-mother-in-law
Controlling tech more than mother in law
Using technology not to full capacity
Using a budgeting app
Technology making her more intentional in finances
Purchasing after research and collaboration
Differing needs to consider in tech purchase husband/wife…his
job related hers role related
Buying done together
Not using or valuing phone for standard talking purposes—pics
and Internet
Buying done by husband
Frustration with technology that does not assist in the way
imagined/needed
Husband does research and tech purchasing
Kids using phone rather than laptop because of mouse pad skill
required (touch versus click
Scrolling through camera roll-kids
Hoping greater sense of community in the future
“I feel like that will happen that one day you know they’re gonna
surpass us”
“In this upcoming generation I’m noticing, like, from when I was
in high school, we had limited technology and we thought that
technology was amazing, and then now, it’s like they have new
technology and every day the world is just completely changing”
Daughter has to “keep up with where the world is going today”
through technology
Coming to the US-“I know that the world is changing”
Hearing from U.S. media that everything is technology
What is the difference between US and Mexico-““More advanced
because the people little by little are losing everything to
technology
The age at which children feel ready to have a device “just keeps
getting younger and younger”
When children are parents “They’ll probably be less strict because
there will be so much that they won’t even know how to control
it”
Believing technology will be integrated, “I just think it’s gonna
become so integrated in society that we’re gonna have a really
hard time living without it
“it’s funny how nowadays my parenting decisions are based
around technology, you know, like some of the technology
284
Embracing innovation
decisions I make are based on w-w-what will we need for our kids,
you know?
Relying on schools to know and teach necessary/latest technology
Believing teenagers need cell phones but should be socializing
with family “If they're teenagers, I can see they would need one,
but they should be sitting down eating dinner with their family,
especially if there's grandparents around,”’
Giving child cell phone in MS or Hs but not smartphone
Buying tech in Mexico is more expensive(2Xs)
Having come to the US there is more pressure to use technology
Believing there is much more technology in the US than Mexico
Buying son a cell phone when he needs it
Believing son will use more technology when he enters school
Believing Internet safety will become a larger issue in elementary
school, “Internet safety is going to have to be huge, if they are
going to start introducing more internet to elementary kids”
“I didn’t have one until I was fifteen, but now we’re considering
giving our elementary kids cell phones”
Believing she’ll have to invest in Internet filter software, “at home
that will be a huge thing we’ll have to, to buy into Internet safety
and teaching our kids internet safety and watching out for things
that, that come into the Internet”
Taking tests on computer
Believing libraries will be all digital
Believing son will research online for school at home “I think the
research aspect, I just think in the future, will be done more at
home than in the school”
Observing that with video baby monitors her kids are used to
people watching them via video
Believing son will be a gamer when he gets older because his
father plays video games
Having textbooks on tablet
Believing textbooks will be downloaded on iPad, “my husband
and I are like, pretty soon, they’re just going to have an IPad in
their backpack and have all their books downloaded”
Believing digital textbooks are much more economical
Children will have to contribute for innovation: we don’t have a
budget for extra expenses they won’t have those things unless
they’re paying for it on their own
Being open and honest about what they see and do with
technology “it’ll very case by case and what technology will look
like”
Believing Homeschooling for high school will require more
technology I’m going to have to use more technology in order to
teach them because I I want them to function in the world later and
I feel like technology will be a part of it
Believing son will be researching in American schools
Believing American schools have iPods and iPads and “good will
come out of it”
Making life/parenting easier
“technology is opening up a door for them”
Learning industry systems (healthcare)
Using voice-activated technologies
“It’s definitely the age we live in, so they have to know it, but they
learn it so fast! I don’t know if it’s from watching me, but they
definitely figure it out on their own.”
285
Resisting group think
Training transfer
Using touch screen
Believing technology opens many doors to future learning
Having much more tech when children are parents
Unlimited “horizons” for children’s learning because of
technology
Technology broadens the possibilities for children
Leveraging integrated systems in school settings
Taking ownership of devices
Making decisions contrary to perceived norm
Realizing that many people are using computer learning for their
kids but “we didn’t want to do that for our kids”
“Like my mom, she gave me my phone when she thought I was
responsible, but like most parents I see now a days just give their
kid a phone just because they feel like everybody else had it and
they want their kid to feel like they got something too I feel like
you can’t really predict. It’s whenever they’re ready”
“I know tons of other people who that’s how they learned all of
that stuff is through a screen and we didn’t want to do that for our
kids,”
Children won’t be having cell phones as youngsters I know some
parents who let their kids have cell phones, um, when they’re
really young, and I, we don’t plan on doing that
Talking about violence, gore and sexuality: “they’re going to see
enough of that in the world, but they don’t need to see that in our
home”
Leveraging technology as a tool to families advantage
“we want their foundation to be on Christ and we want their
foundation to be on what is right based on what God says”
Conflict with school? “I do see a conflict in one day, if you go
digital and the hardcopy’s not accessible and they are, and they
need that hardcopy, they, not necessarily for fine motor skills, but
just for thinking skills”
Believing she has more control over her children than other
parents: “Other parents let their kids have access to so much stuff
on the Internet and so many different apps, but I think I will
control which apps they can have and how much they can use their
phones alone”
“I think technology kind of takes, like, our responsibility of
education of our kids away”
Hoping child will adopt boundaries
Transferring accountability with their cell phone passwords to
what they will expect of their son’s cell and password
Making decisions more as husband and wife as children get older
Checking cell contact list
Believing parenting will be harder for children because “being too
connected that you’re not actually connected”
“I would hope that they would be similar, umm, yeah, that
ultimately they’ll see value in what we did and why we did what
we did.”
“We want to work hard to make sure he doesn’t ever feels entitled
to a certain piece of technology because that’s what everybody
else has versus ‘this is what our family needs and this is what our
family can provide’ and then we would like to instill a big sense of
responsibility in being responsible with it and consequences when
he’s not.”
286
Worrying about
unknowns
Rather than checking up on children teaching and talking to them,
“I think I would rather hope to instill a sense of responsibility and
propriety in my children, so that I’m not having to monitor exactly
what they do and every interaction”
Thinking son will be relaxed in his tech use because “I mean the
example that we’re setting right now, I think it will be more
relaxed because we are more relaxed”
Technology is part of overall training: “we want to train them so
that they know, that one day, they can do the same thing”
Believing when her son is a parent is will be harder for him to
parent because technology is everywhere and always changing
Using device in public spaces in home
Articulating the generational technology decisions,” I mean, that’s
how I learned from my mom and so, um, like it or not, I know I’m
setting an example for her, so I think she’ll probably do the same
things, same decisions that I’m making now”
Create boundaries and stick with them
“think I think the way we raise our family and the way that we
hope to raise our family would be trust”
Understanding technology boundaries as future parents “ultimately
they’ll see value in what we did and why we did what we did be
respectful of it”
Training transfer-playing with hands now “so much like they
won’t be able to sit still” as adults and just focus on a computer
Monitoring sons tech use to “build them up and encourage them
and edify, spur them on”
Believing training is trust “there’s still that balance there like you
want to trust your child and you want them to trust you and that
they can still have a life and be apart from you but that there’s still
umm there’s checks and balances”
Explaining about wise choices using movies
Homeschooling for personalized education
Modeling to form reference point
Knowing passwords
Instilling responsibility
Trusting child
Maintaining communication
Television is different in Mexico than in US so television will
affect son’s identity as Latino
Believing son won’t have much time for technology outside of
school in middle school and high school so she won’t have to
monitor it because he won’t have much free time
Anticipates only allowing FB and other technology during free
time
Being afraid schools can’t offer devices or controls that she can in
homeschooling daughter
Believes she will not know her sons friends or know if he is being
bullied
“They haven’t become as advanced as we are in our homes”
“Part of the reason we decided to homeschool her is that we
looked at some of the local public schools at their use of
technology and the lack of understanding or the lack of monitoring
on the part of the school, for children who use it, and we’re very
concerned about that so we’d rather she do it safely in our home.”
287
Worrying about Internet bullying and if schools teach safeguards
against that, “I don’t know how much in schools are they actually
teaching that”
Trying not to think too far ahead
“I’m gonna be checking her—‘I’m gonna be on you like white on
rice, honey’, I’m going to be checking everything. I’m going to
know everything if I need to print out stuff I will. I will have every
password. I will know. You will know there’s a time, a curfew,
that you’re not to be on that cell phone, but I also think of safety,
but no, if there’s ever a time that they break that trust or break that
understanding or things get out of hand, oh mommy will definitely
have that phone, not a question about it.”
Losing control as child gets older
Message for Latinas and American mothers: “always see what
they are watching, what they are playing, what they are doing,
who they are talking to… Our world now is dangerous, one never
knows what’s being said,”